←back to thread

Less Htmx Is More

(unplannedobsolescence.com)
169 points fanf2 | 1 comments | 08 Apr 25 08:42 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
axegon_ ◴[08 Apr 25 10:32 UTC] No.43620121[source]▶
> Updates that users would not expect to see on a refresh (or a new page load)

I always hated this idea. As a user, a refresh indicates that something is happening and it's abundantly clear when something is wrong. People don't always handle errors and in all fairness they shouldn't - a developer has no way of knowing what custom stuff I have on my browser, whether I'm using any blockers or pi-holes or whatever and they should not know. Simple navigation, refreshes and server side rendering is something which worked great, the web was fast and could run on anything with a graphical output. These days a single page eats up 150+ mb while it loads. All that so the page doesn't "refresh".

replies(2): >>43620225 #>>43620587 #
sgt ◴[08 Apr 25 10:50 UTC] No.43620225[source]▶
It's not that smooth looking if a refresh takes 500 milliseconds. Then it flickers.
replies(3): >>43620323 #>>43620644 #>>43620837 #
axegon_ ◴[08 Apr 25 11:57 UTC] No.43620644[source]▶
Oh yeah a 15 second spinning circle and 250mb memory is sooooo much better than a 500ms refresh </sarcasm>
replies(2): >>43620849 #>>43623738 #
1. earthnail ◴[08 Apr 25 16:41 UTC] No.43623738{3}[source]▶
A 2s spinning circle may indeed be better than a 500ms flashing reload. Try it on your mom (“waaah why did it flash??”).

I also dislike SPAs but there is business value in this slow spinner that you shouldn’t discount.

Luckily, turbo or htmx solve this just as well. And maybe even more importantly, I can’t think of a modern browser that still flickers.