Almost anything is better than CNN: https://urlscan.io/result/6834c63f-b092-4e4e-b72b-91bd1c1b82... This is on par with other shitty news-websites.

This website contacted 65 IPs in 7 countries across 35 domains to perform 314 HTTP transactions. [...] In total, 4 MB of data was transfered, which is 12 MB uncompressed. It took 2.753 seconds to load this page.

Compare this to the now-SSR cnn.io: https://urlscan.io/result/7d13efac-ffaa-4ac2-a091-8611e39b20... (59kB transfer)

Edit: Someone scanned the lite-version before they switched to SSR: https://urlscan.io/result/2a9690eb-3992-4712-a657-c3be959d51...

This reveals why I didn't see anything on my phone on first time visiting it. My browser just show a blank page, then seconds later the contents show up.

What's worse all the content is sent inline, just not as html :( Why complicate this so much?

FWIW, base64-js and similar libraries are still needed (though probably not in this case...) because window.btoa() only works on latin1 ASCII strings. Try giving it some arbitrary UTF-8:

btoa("\ud83d\ude0b") -> Uncaught DOMException: Failed to execute 'btoa' on 'Window': The string to be encoded contains characters outside of the Latin1 range.

(Edit: apparently HN doesn't either; changed to \u...)

> FWIW, base64-js and similar libraries are still needed

For what? This is a non-interactive text-only website. It shouldn't need anything beside HTML and CSS.

You are 100% correct. Honestly, it doesn't need CSS even, although that's nice to have.

I've got NoScript on, and now the pages load perfectly. I think I may return to being a CNN reader now. If only they could figure out how to monetise this.

For the rest of the sentence... I was clearly referring to the question of why someone would use a library for base64 versus the built-in function. Not getting involved in the anti-js internet pitchfork mob.

FWIW the site still looks fine with noscript enabled.

WTF? why any JS at all for something that's pure content?

Because this site is clearly in need of 250 KB surveillance JavaScript.

So even this "plain text" site still transfers ~98 % bloat and just ~2 % content.

transfer is different from filesize

its more around 90% JS, 10% content

After the first page load (with scripts cached) its around 87% content (unfortunately they don't seem to be caching CSS)

History repeats itself. This is just like flash sites back in the 90s.

It has no benefit on the client itself, but in this (server-rendered) case, you can think of it as improved PHP/Ruby/....

The question wasn't why anyone was using Javascript on the server.

The question was why a pure-text non-interactive website needs any javascript at all.

Because when you're treating React as a templating language, it's easier to let it run on the client side during development and add server rendering later.

Seems like it'd be easier to just use the templates already there for the content on the server, instead of building an additional application.

i don't know react. Can you elaborate what you mean using React as a templating language? Are you saying react can be used sans any business logic and purely for template interpolation?

Simply put, React lets you do two things:

* Generate a HTML/DOM based on a template and data.

* Lets you efficiently update that DOM based on updates to the data and/or model (this is it's killer feature).

But if you're just going to do the first thing (generate a HTML/DOM), you don't need most of React's feature set, and you certainly don't need to push heavy JS onto the client.

For those cases, a much better approach (for both clients and SEO) is to just pre-render the DOM/HTML server-side and serve that without any need for any javascript client-side (which is what the similarly named module "Preact" does).

Josteink said it excellently, my addition is that React itself is a view library that lets you update DOM easily based on some data, and the data (and the logic behind it) can be and often are completely separated from React components themselves.

>> At least it's still better than cnn.com.

That's literally the entire value prop of the website. The author isn't obligated to use your personal list of approved web tools.