Consultant frontend architect Harry Roberts got straight to the point: "In a word: No. In many words: Full JS apps are fine provided that a) They have their first render on the server, and b) They give me some content if that JS fails to load. It's less about availability of JS, and more about not entrusting flaky network connections with delivering our entire app in one render-blocking package. That's the problem. Don't make JSyourapp's single point of failure."(Sarcastically) Yes!
"As long as you're fine with thesite completely failing because the browser is too old, or too new, or the user's bandwidth istoo constrained, or the server hiccups, or a firewall's security policy blocks it, or a dependency goes sideways, or you accidentally drop a semicolon somewhere, then sure," says consultant and author Eric Meyer , "it's OK. What you build won't be a part of the web continuum, and it will be needlessly fragile, but that's a choice you can make."Offline-first, first
"So offline-first treating the network as an enhancement with JS tools like Service Worker and IndexedDB has become the new standard for building fast, resilient websites. It is possible to do both traditional progressive enhancement and offline-first, but it's not easy. Weshould prioritise offline-first over works-without-JS."As long as it's done well
This article originally appeared in net magazine issue 288; buy it here !Related articles: