On not choosing WordPress for the W3C redesign project - Working in the open with W3C and Studio 24

Progressive Enhancement—Ain’t Nobody Got Time for that | GlückPress

Two sides of a debate on progressive enhancement…

Andrey “Rarst” Savchenko wrote Progressive enhancement — JS sites that work:

If your content website breaks down from JavaScript issue — it is broken.

Joe Hoyle disagrees:

Unlike Rarst, I don’t value progressive enhancement very highly and don’t agree it’s a fundamental principle of the web that should be universally employed. Quite frankly, I don’t care about not supporting JavaScript, and neither does virtually anyone else. It’s not that it doesn’t have any value, or utility - but in a world where we don’t have unlimited resources and time, one has to prioritise what we’ll support and not support.

Caspar acknowledges this:

I don’t have any problem buying into pragmatism as the main and often pressing reason for not investing into a no-JS fallback. The idealistic nature of a design directive like progressive enhancement is very clear to me, and so are typical restrictions in client projects (budgets, deadlines, processes of decision making).

But concludes that by itself that’s not enough reason to ditch such a fundamental technique for building a universal, accessible web:

Ain’t nobody got time for progressive enhancement always, maybe. But entirely ditching principle as a compass for resilient decision making won’t do.

See also: Mike Little’s thoughts on progressive enhancement and accessibility.

Removing React is just weakness leaving your codebase — Begin Blog

The web is backward and forward compatible. Anything you learn about HTML, CSS and browser API’s will serve you well for the next 25 years, which is not something you can say about the current fashion in JavaScript libraries. By ejecting from the thrash of React and other heavy-handed frameworks and doubling down on web fundamentals, you’ll be future-proofing both your career and your codebases.

Concatenating text

Why the heck is everyone reaching for React as soon as something on the screen needs to update? And why do we insist on squishing our frontend concerns together with our backend concerns?

I’m glad I’m not the only one constantly asking myself those questions.

Look: is the idea of physically separating “code that runs business logic and builds markup” from “code that handles realtime interactions” really that awful? You can write both in JS if you like, I promise I won’t judge, but we can’t keep pretending that they’re basically the same.

Cameron Dutro on ruby.social

Here’s the inside scoop on why Github is making a bizarre move from working web components to a legacy React stack.

Most of what I heard in favor of React was a) it’s got a good DX, b) it’s easy to hire for, and c) we only want to use it for a couple of features, not the entire website.

It’s all depressingly familiar, but it’s very weird to come across this kind of outdated thinking in 2023.

My personal prediction is that, eventually, the company (and many other companies) will realize how bad React is for most things, and abandon it. I guess we’ll see.

Robin Rendle ･ The web is too damn complex

The modern web wouldn’t be possible without big ol’ JavaScript frameworks, but—but—much of the web today is held back because of these frameworks. There’s a lot of folks out there that think that every website must use their framework of choice even when it’s not necessary. And although those frameworks solve a great number of problems, they introduce a substantial number of trade-offs; performance issues you have to deal with, complex build processes you have to learn, and endless dependency updates that can introduce bugs.