Accessibility isn't any more of a problem than it is with HTML. For screen readers, et al it's still something that needs to be deliberately incorporated into the document structure, and modern frameworks are more than capable of handling it. What about older browsers with crappy JS implementations? Front-end frameworks have tools designed to extend support to much older browsers with limited JS support. The percentage of people who have access to a web browser but can't use javascript applications is vanishingly small. When I've worked with people making publicly-funded tools for which accessibility must accommodate people with very limited technical means-- unhoused people, for example-- developers tend to skip the web interface altogether and go with SMS combined with telephone or in-person service. JS is not the barrier.
Obviously that 50MB binary is hyperbole, but the baseline Vue include is 16k. It's certainly easier to make make front-end JS heavy and unreliable than plain static HTML, but it's pretty easy to avoid it, and design that poor would probably fuck up plain-old HTML and CSS just as bad. The fact is that most users do appreciate the dynamic features and responsiveness that is only possible with js. If you don't, and want to exclude yourself from modern web functionality, then be my guest. I think it's pretty strange that you'd expect other people to go out of their way to accommodate your rather uncommon preferences to make an experience most users consider worse and doesn't work towards satisfying any tangible business needs.
I didn't. I said that accessibility is no more of a problem for js-fueled pages than HTML pages, which was not always true.
> Dont even bother telling me that this use case is no longer supported
Then don't say people are making websites wrong when by common practice you're using the wrong tools to interact with them.
> I know that. That doesn't change my technical opinion that JS is way too much of a gun for documents.
Like I said, feel free to opt out of the modern internet. It's your life. It's just flatly absurd to be in your position and accuse developers of having poor practices when they provide an objectively better experience for probably 9999 out of 10000 other users by using widely accepted, standard, reliable practices that often require less development time.
I can’t count the number of SPAs that manage to break basic browser functionality like links, back/forward navigation and scrolling. It’s insane.
No. Not without knowing the use case, the requirements, the users, and all of that. Sometimes I don't need anything beyond a text editor for something I make. Use the right tool for the job.
> I can’t count the number of SPAs that manage to break basic browser functionality like links, back/forward navigation and scrolling. It’s insane.
Yes. With more powerful tools you can fuck more things up, more thoroughly than with less powerful tools. That's not a problem with tools, that's a problem with bad development and design. Assuming that the person who fucked it up that badly would have made a better experience with less powerful tools is almost certainly wrong.
Have a nice day, and enjoy your eye-sight.
I still think it's ridiculous to say that developers are doing something wrong by using modern practices just because it doesn't fit your use case. You can have your opinion all you want to and I can have my opinion about it.
Of course, some people might want additional functionality, and to facilitate that functionality, we have many technological tools at our disposal which make the process of implementing that functionality simpler than not using them.