Correction: Sites are javascript heavy because it is easy to accidentally create javascript-heavy sites, and the programmers who do this also do not care that they have done it.
> it is easy to accidentally create javascript-heavy sites
It's definitely not easy by any definition. And also not happening accidentally. Almost all frameworks/libraries mention about how small they are in overhead.
I agree with this. I do wonder if low/no-code products will ever become good enough that you'd feel comfortable actually using one. I believe a part of this is having infrastructure/system that can describe itself in sufficient detail. Then the ability to modify itself with sufficient variety. Fundamentally I've seen ORMs/APIs/integrations that are more or less a crap shoot as to whether or not they're going to work, god forbid if a version of something is upgraded. The fallibility of it all will prevent this from happening.
they totally will... but it's probably going to show up the way you would expect it to... some open source project will get really good at helping you configure 95% of your app with a CLI or something... then you'll mod some methods etc. Eventually that will transform into something that can predict what you'll need.
IMO stuff like serverless, OpenAPI, some of the boilerplates out there, etc are already heading in that direction. It used to take me a week to build a standard CRUD API with a handful of models, now I can do it circa 15-30min.
Excel is spreadsheet application. It is not related to the parent post, which discusses networked CRUD application, with various integration points, DB, caching, redundant deployments, etc..
I've experienced Excel being used with all of those in bigger non-tech companies.
Integration points: Everyone sends their version to Person A, and they integrate it, filter it, postprocess it, extracts parts into another sheet, etc.
Caching: Everyone has their own version of the excel sheet in their local inbox.
Redundant: There's typically plenty of shared directories on which you can find the same excel sheet in different versions.
No, Excel is not relevant to the conversation. Excel is a standalone desktop application. No, Excel is not an example of a "no-code" webapp. Do you seriously need another adult to tell you these things?
Used to love Diggnation and Digg reel, it felt wild and uncontrolled, yet the production values were good. Really liked the hosts of Digg Reel also, Andrew Bancroft and Annie Gaus (had to look them up).
Revision3 had some other great shows also on their list. Too bad there is nothing like that anymore on the internet, at least to my knowledge.
Oh, easy. That was the internet when it was mostly composed of enthusiasts or people interested in discovering things. That time has gone, and the internet now is mostly a tool for normies to reproduce their "real" life on the internet. Pictures, personas, various frivolities that early users of the internet were trying to get away from.
Now with the idear of delicious coming back, your comment makes me consider all the good low-to-mid scale shit we've lost over time. In ~ 2008 it seems like there were just more fun/interesting sites around. Maybe I was just in an exploratory phase - late teens - and was discovering new things often. Or maybe the barrier to entry today, in terms of design/polish/product is weirdly high, and has pushed out the seeker-net in favor of normie-net.
I think the most obvious example I would add to this list you are thinking of would be livejournal. I also had a handful of SoundCloud-like medium scale music sites that I went to, like Purevolume.
I also remember this as a time when Google didn't yet have a reputation for abandoning everything they touched, so you could get inspired by, say, Google Knol or Google Wave. I had hope that Google Reader might grow into something, and the was a fraction of a second where we all wanted to believe in Google Plus.
So ahead of its time! I have never understood why that got the axe, it took everything they where doing great at that time (chat, video, email, and the newish At the time G suite apps (called something else then) and just meshed them together in a surprisingly useful and pleasant way. Also the whiteboard features were really good particularly for it’s time.
This Mashable article does a good job explaining it in more detail[0]
I can’t believe it to this day they couldn’t figure it out. It was very ahead of its time
There are no real barriers to blogging or using an RSS reader if you want to. (RSS feeds are less ubiquitous than they used to be but they're still common.) And, of course, for saving and sharing bookmarks, it's Pinboard that's buying del.icio.us.
I never really tried out Wave but Knol suffered from the problem you'd expect if everyone gets to write their own self-promotional competing article on a topic.
>There are no real barriers to blogging or using an RSS reader if you want to. (RSS feeds are less ubiquitous than they used to be but they're still common.)
I'm perfectly aware of this and have used RSS feeds on a daily basis for more than a decade, so I'm not sure what's being suggested here.
The point I made is more nuanced than that. I didn't say there is a large financial barrier to entry for the production of a modern website. The point is, Delicious, Digg, etc. would fizzle out today pretty quickly. Consumers have come to expect a certain refinement of design, usability, mobile-bullshit, etc. etc. that web companies of yore weren't exactly known for. What we're left with today is a bunch of crap that looks good but lacks novelty.
It's mostly due to this principle actually that Facebook usurped Myspace despite having far fewer features.
One exception to the rule lately is Roam Research, which looks like dog shit but is apparently popular.
I understood your point, I'm just rejecting it. If your measure of success is scaling and making massive amounts of money, then sure, all the successful website are boring. But there are plenty of interesting websites still out there. There are still PHPBB forums which "look like dog shit" but host vibrant communities. I'm not sure on what basis you would consider these communities to have "fizzled out".
I think it's clear by your response that you didn't get it.
> There are still PHPBB forums which "look like dog shit" but host vibrant communities
There are small communities that predate modern web/Facebook, which is irrelevant. There is also craigslist, and its shitty design is remarked upon constantly. It's frequented by the elderly so falls outside the scope of discussion.
You're married to the idea that design standards haven't changed, or that the web as a platform hasn't become much more sophisticated over the last ~decade.
The great thing about subscribing to HN via RSS is that you can see all the content that made it to the front page (as this post did), and was subsequently censored by leftist definitely-not-fascists
The reality here is that if you're a leftist, you may well be under the impression that people are in fact overcommunicating ever minor, pointless, faux-activist idea that pops into their head. If you're not a leftist, of course you're self-censoring constantly, despite how bold and idiotic the mob's ideas may be.
