News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:300ms Faster: Reducing Wikipedia's Total Blocking Time by ajkjk on Monday May 29, 2023 @12:16PM (#36115327)
It's not unnecessary if the feature is something you want?

There's this pattern on HN: people value a feature as having 0 utility and then become annoyed that someone has paid time/performance/money for them. Well duh, if you discount the value of something to 0, it will always be a bad idea. But you're never going to understand why people are paying for it if you write off their values.

At my last job there were countless pieces of UX to make things smoother, more responsive, better controlled by keyboard or voice reader, etc.. that required JS. It was not possible to make our site as good as possible with CSS, and it certainly wasn't worth the tradeoffs of loading a big faster (not that it couldn't have had it's loading time improved--just, cutting JS was a nonstarter).

Re:300ms Faster: Reducing Wikipedia's Total Blocking Time by onion2k on Monday May 29, 2023 @01:17PM (#36115897)
It's not unnecessary if the feature is something you want?

The js is unnecessary if you can achieve the same result with plain css.

Re:300ms Faster: Reducing Wikipedia's Total Blocking Time by ajkjk on Monday May 29, 2023 @03:29PM (#36117130)
And you often can't.
Re:300ms Faster: Reducing Wikipedia's Total Blocking Time by spartanatreyu on Monday May 29, 2023 @07:42PM (#36119450)
In my experience, most people just aren't aware of what CSS is capable of.

But to play devil's advocate: just because you can, doesn't mean you should.