Jason Knight

The less code you use, the less there is to break

Sep 5, 2018

Never heard of it, but giving the demo's a once-over if this is typical of the code they vomit up:

gatsbyjs.github.io/gatsby-starter-default

I would NOT suggest using it. They seem to have a raging chodo for inlining style in the markup which means a missed caching opportunity. In general their entire site and much of the methodologies listed in their tutorials

So like most of this nonsense, my advice is just say "no" -- unless you WANT to tell users with accessibility needs to go plow themselves and deploy ten times the code needed to do the job.

The real laugh being their output is minified and it's STILL 11k of markup to deliver 100 bytes of plaintext -- not even 1k's flipping JOB. Admittedly 9.9k of that is all the style that has ZERO BLASTED BUSINESS IN THE MARKUP, but even that's a bloated mess; a laundry list of how NOT to build a website. Don't even get me STARTED about the train wreck of hardcoded CSR in that bloated script.

To be brutally frank if all of those "data-react" attributes slopped onto things JavaScript has zero blasted business even touching, inlined style="", static STYLE tags, pixel max-width with EM content, lack of condensed properties in the stylesheets, and host of other "I cans haz teh intarwebs" ineptitude doesn't tell you these people have NO business telling others how to make websites, nothing well.

Just once I'd like to see one of these things where the code didn't just scream "For people who know nothing about building websites, BY people who know NOTHING about building websites."

This one only reinforces my belief that such systems are incapable of producing quality websites. They are universally bloated trash flipping the bird at accessibility, chewing on bandwidth for nothing, and overflowing with bad practices. I hate to use the words as I do resort to them far, far too often, but these types of "shortcuts" simply reek of ignorance, ineptitude, and incompetence.

Apologies to all if that's too "harsh", or "offensive", or gets your knickers in a twist, but that's the TRUTH of it! Truth hurts, that's why it's so unpopular.

Alternatives? You want to write a static site, just write a static site! Or go simpler by just leveraging whatever your server side language is to divide up the common parts from your content -- the old "poor man's" approach.

Andrew E. Rhyne

Software Engineer

Sep 6, 2018

Wow haha. I thought I'd seen every type of offensive personality the world had to offer :(

Andrew E. Rhyne Well care to argue any of my points, disproving any of them? Or is your response a "wah wah, is not" where you pack up your toys and run home?

Can you actually refute a single thing I said?

But of course, I'm the one with the offensive personality standing up for people with accessibility needs and trying to promote good practices. RIGHT. Again it's not how I'm saying it at all, no, that's just the excuse. It's precisely WHAT I'm saying that's so 'upsetting'. It's trash, it's obviously trash, and to be that big a steaming pile of trash the people making it cannot possibly have a firm grasp of HTML, CSS, or JavaScript -- as evidenced by, well, the evidence I provided above. (Or any competent developer hitting 'view source' of the resultant output)

I wonder just what's wrong with the people who defend this type of stuff; though it often seems those doing so rarely have any legitimate counterpoint, piss and moan about how it was said, because we seem to be building a society where "my ignorance is as good as your facts" is damned near a catch-phrase.

Set aside your "he's using harsh words" instinct and just try; TRY; and provide some counter-arguments, or examples that disprove my statements. I'll actually be shocked if you can do it.

... and if you can't, well... proves my point that it's NOT how it's being said at all; never is.

dvillegas

I think you'd be pleased to find out that the "vomited code" you speak of is worth 3.8 million dollars

Quixtar (the company that owns Amway) is worth somewhere over 20 million, their founder being worth around 5.3 million when he died. Patrow's goop is allegedly worth over 250 million (though it has around 113 million in liabilities... well, 114 now after losing in court). The dirtbag calling himself an Avocado comes in at around 40 million. "Answers in Genesis" takes in over 27 million in tax-free revenues against 20 million in outlays (half a million of that to Ken Ham yearly)...

That doesn't make what they peddle any less of a scam, nor does it make their followers any less cultish or deluded. What something's worth in the market is not a meaningful metric -- hence the "bandwagon" aspect of the seven core propaganda techniques. Tons of disinformation, lies, and outright delusions are popular. That's akin to when Christians say "2.8 billion people can't be wrong" -- yes they can, particularly when that ignores the other 5 billion people on the planet.

And oh noes, some people on twitter are upset with what I say. Heavens to betsy clutch the pearls. As if I expected any different or even care -- I would fully well expect the same if I went after creationists, organic food fanboys, anti-vaxxers, flat earthers, jade egg stuffers, or any other such group.

Though to be fair, I have a lower opinion of Twitter than I do frameworks. I miss the days when people used to complain that 32k was too small a limit for a forum post -- now you hand people 288 bytes and they're like beggers on horseback, they couldn't stand the prosperity.

The "toxic actors" comment made me laugh though. Alex Jones fans in action? Nice job priming the audience by the way!

Don't bother ranting back

Laugh is if you consider this reply a "rant" I'd hate to see how you'd react to an actual rant.

spewing ignorance every chance you get.

Funny, methinks we have a different definition of ignorance. But again another post that claims it's how it's said, but refuses to acknowledge or contents what is being said -- meaning it's EXACTLY what's being said. Hence when Andrew E. Rhyne said:

In terms of whether or not these tools are “garbage” in most cases, if not every case, the burden of proof is on you.

That's why my initial post and replies are filled with proof; hence the ball being the court of those who like it to refute said claims -- something they NEVER do and instead ALWAYS latch onto every possible excuse not to do so. The response is ALWAYS nothing more than "is not".

Search Hashnode