Well, I disagree with you on disabling javascript being an "essential security precaution", but that's another discussion...
As for the rest, there's also the point that the author probably wouldn't have done this that way. That seems like a dumb sentence, but hopefully i can explain it.
This kind of thing isn't going to make any money, even with ads this is an niche thing and would probably end up making him tens of dollars at most (unless he got really lucky). That means that most likely his motivation was to "show off" a bit. Show potential employers that he can use those technologies, show off his professional skill, and at the same time solve a problem that he saw himself. So most likely it wouldn't have been made without those technologies.
But either way, I don't think that this is the wrong way of doing things. I know that many disagree with me, but for most "web apps" progressive enhancement is dead. Yeah, for a simple company website, or something which should be accessed by as many people as possible like government websites, PE is still very alive, but for everything else, it's done. Javascript is part of the platform, and disabling javascript but still expecting a fully useful web is like disabling python and still expecting all of your linux tools to work the same (after all, those same devs could have written their code in C, then progressively enhanced it with python).
It's part of the platform, and it's here to stay. Disabling javascript is not the solution to security issues.
> I know that many disagree with me, but for most "web apps" progressive enhancement is dead … Javascript is part of the platform
It shouldn't be, it really shouldn't be. The web should be about GETing, PUTting, POSTting & DELET(E)ing resources (i.e., documents); it shouldn't about GETting executables.
There's definitely a place in the world for a well-thought out universal executable platform, but HTTP + HTML + CSS + JavaScript ain't it.
Progressive enhancement is a good thing: a document which used JavaScript to become a better, live version of itself would be better than an ASCII list of neat things doable with the Google interface; it'd be better than a static HTML document. And it'd be better than a single-page app.
> It's part of the platform, and it's here to stay.
Would it be valid for me to say that python shouldn't be a part of linux? That people should stop using python on their linux command line tools because linux is really about C.
The web is an application platform, and I still haven't heard any convincing arguments as why we shouldn't use it as one besides "Because it wasn't one in the past".
I agree that progressive enhancement is a good thing, and in a perfect world every application would start with the bare minimum and work up the "technology tree" to get to the latest and greatest, but in the real world of limited time and money that's almost never possible. Having something that's not perfect is better than not having anything at all.
> Would it be valid for me to say that python shouldn't be a part of linux? That people should stop using python on their linux command line tools because linux is really about C.
Somewhat fair point, but at least it would cut out the number of language runtimes one has to have on a Linux computer. For simple command-line tools, besides C/C++, you end up needing Perl, Python, Ruby, and now probably also Go and Rust.
> Having something that's not perfect is better than not having anything at all.
Arguable. The Internet is a perfect example of having a lot of things that would be better off not existing in the first place. Like, e.g., most of the sites for which ads are the only viable business model. But that's a longer discussion.
I think the important point is that, while the individual choices of a software engineer in a particular time and moment can be excused, the trend as a whole is pushing us towards increasingly batshit insane pseudo-engineering.
A static list like that should not need anything more than plain HTML/CSS and a little bit of JavaScript sprinkled on top to do the click effects. That people end up using shit ton of frameworks and external services for simple sites (this one is far from the only case) suggests that there's something very wrong with the industry as a whole. It's worth identifying it and figuring out how to fix it.
>The Internet is a perfect example of having a lot of things that would be better off not existing in the first place.
I just can't agree with that. Sure, there are things like malware which shouldn't exist, but outside of that I just can't agree that something shouldn't exist because some don't like the business model (or the technology used).
>A static list like that should not need anything more than plain HTML/CSS and a little bit of JavaScript sprinkled on top to do the click effects.
It doesn't need more than that, but having more than that provides a lot of benefits. A nicer look and feel, a more "responsive" view in terms of massively changing UI depending on the screen size, inline search, a unique and pretty useful way of showing different possibilities of each phrase, etc... All while being very simple to make (which is an extremely important point for something like this).
I know many people don't like those things, but to dismiss them as "something very wrong with the industry" is incorrect in my view. People want eye-candy, and they want it instantly. If they can't get it through the web, they will get it through downloaded applications, or apps in closed app stores, or some other methods that we haven't even thought up yet. And blaming people for wanting it isn't the answer, nor is "fixing" it against their will.
Just like how you could make this website with plain html, then layer css and javascript on top to make it look nicer, you could make a package manager on linux that has 0 dependencies, then add python and perl to enhance it. But nobody has the time or money for that, and in the grand scheme of things it's not going to hurt anyone.
This is a website about voice commands that you can say to your phone, have them sent to google, analyzed, and a result sent back (which might go to a search page which uses more data than this whole site does). Building the website in the way you feel it should would not have improved live for many people at all, and it would have possibly made the author never want to make it in the first place.
yeah, and whats all this about mobile apps? a phone is for making phone calls, not browsing web pages and playing games. these thibgs would be better off if you called a phone number that would read out the weather to you and so on. If you want to leave a text message or an email, you should call up a phone service and tell them to write the email for you.
As for the rest, there's also the point that the author probably wouldn't have done this that way. That seems like a dumb sentence, but hopefully i can explain it.
This kind of thing isn't going to make any money, even with ads this is an niche thing and would probably end up making him tens of dollars at most (unless he got really lucky). That means that most likely his motivation was to "show off" a bit. Show potential employers that he can use those technologies, show off his professional skill, and at the same time solve a problem that he saw himself. So most likely it wouldn't have been made without those technologies.
But either way, I don't think that this is the wrong way of doing things. I know that many disagree with me, but for most "web apps" progressive enhancement is dead. Yeah, for a simple company website, or something which should be accessed by as many people as possible like government websites, PE is still very alive, but for everything else, it's done. Javascript is part of the platform, and disabling javascript but still expecting a fully useful web is like disabling python and still expecting all of your linux tools to work the same (after all, those same devs could have written their code in C, then progressively enhanced it with python).
It's part of the platform, and it's here to stay. Disabling javascript is not the solution to security issues.