I have a better idea:

Say "fsck you" to the Mr. Einstein who had the idea to copycat "pull to refresh" from the Twitter app.

"But remember, it's just for your protection bruh!!1!"

@c3r38r170 Another thing:

If I am at the top, pull-to-refresh even prevents me from scrolling down if I swiped up ever so slightly before swiping down.

Avoiding pull-to-refresh is a dizzying walk on eggshells. It prevents enjoying web browsing relaxed.

A screen-sized refresh button is an anti-feature which needs to be eliminated everywhere.

Hey spammer.

Go FSCK yourself.

Yes, you heard it right. FSCK. With an S.

"Bitches"?

You must have confused us with BitchUte.

BitchUte is here, if you are looking for it: https://BitchUte.com

Will you make it possible for us to OS-stream operating systems from Steam?

@devRancid With progressive enhancement (HTML first, then JavaScript), the useful content loads first.

With a JavaScript app, the useful content loads last. Only after all those megabyte-sized JavaScript files.

@kiki In the comments :-)

@black-kite A lightweight static version could be displayed instead of an error message if the JS framework fails.

The JS framework just needs to hide itself if it detects it failed.

@devRancid Read my post again.

JavaScript is an enhancement, not a replacement.

This means the initial page load is via HTML, but enhancements such as posting comments without reloading the page are done via JavaScript.

@c3r38r170 That's my point. If it takes skill to avoid the entire screen as a refresh button, it is an admission that pull-to-refresh is undesirable.

Just over 2000 other people think so too:

https://support.google.com/chrome/...

@K-ASS You misspelled fsck.

@black-kite Then which feature can not be added to an HTML-based website?

HTML-based means JavaScript can be added on top. Just the initial load should not depend on JavaScript, because it's faster and more reliable that way.

Also read:

https://jakearchibald.com/2013/...

Performance comparison:

https://jakearchibald.com/2013/...

From which video?

@Stuxnet Smartphone and app makes switched from black to white, realized it was a bad idea, switched back.

E.g. Galaxy Note 4 white menu backgrounds.

@micahgreene452 Hi, spammer.

Do everyone here a favour and kindly go fsck yourself.

Thank you very, very much.

See also:

https://tantek.com/2015/069/...

By former Mozilla developer.

@tosensei Indeed, but ext4 is from the late 2000s. FAT is from the 1980s, as far as I am aware.

Microsoft says they "love Linux". Hmmm… not enough to support the file system of Linux, apparently.

"And it's not even the worst on the site."

Then what is?

Addition: Web apps are also difficult to archive. They require headless browsers that create WARC files that need a "WARC player" to open.

HTML-based pages can be archived as simple HTML.

@Lensflare These synchronization services can usually store only up to one session per account, because they are just intended for what their name implies. Synchroniztation across devices. Not for backups.

@Lensflare So does Safari let the user create a text file containing opened tabs, history, and bookmarks?

@electrineer This is not my screenshot, I got it from web search.

@Lensflare Yes, for exporting browser tabs and history to a file.

Without exporting ability, the data dies along with the phone.

@Lensflare If it is like that on iOS, I acknowledge it as a benefit. But iOS also is severly locked down.

Admittedly, after Google added so many restrictions since 2014, Android isn't much different anymore. 2024 Android is closer to iOS than to 2013 Android.

And here comes superior TouchWiz!

This screenshot is from 2013, the golden age of Samsung, before they became cucked in 2015.

@SidTheITGuy This Jody guy is a complete genius!

@cafecortado I left Wirth's Law out of the post to see if someone would bring this up. Thank you for bringing it up!

@calmyourtities (part 2)

"i can’t emphasize how much i miss the <marquee> tag."

Ah yes, marquee and blink.

But those are not critical to functionality. A site that used the tags will still render in modern browsers, because HTML and CSS are fail safe.

Also, blinking text would be an annoyance to me anyway. The functionality of marquee and blink can be replicated using CSS animations. But better shouldn't be.

However, one unsupported JavaScript function and a blank page or some other kind of error appears. But no useful content.

@calmyourtities

"that’s a slight improvement in readability that could happen thousands of times in a big project"

Valid point. Then the worse loading performance on the user side simply is collateral damage.

However, HTML-based sites depend less on JavaScript to begin with. More stuff is done on the server side.

"depending on the scenario, the difference between loading without react or with react could be 250ms and 500ms respectively"

When Twitter switched to React in 2019, it took two to three times as long to load. Similarly, YouTube switching in 2017 from HTML to Polymer, a multi-megabyte JavaScript bomb, tripled the time until anything useful appeared on screen.

"if your project requires old browser support, then you plain and simply can’t use react. don’t argue that the framework can’t do what it doesn’t claim to do."

Agreed.