We Keep Coding

Is there any benefit to programming an entire site just by using JavaScript? [closed]

Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
So recently I have come across a site known as "negafinity", I had looked at it as a normal site, until someone told me that the site was programmed using just JavaScript (presumed they had looked at their .js files).
Site URL: https://negafinity.com/
So, is there any benefit in programming your website in full JavaScript? Rather than just programming it in plain HTML, CSS & JavaScript.
If there is, what are the benefits? And what are the disadvantages?
EDIT: To not make it so broad, I am looking for these main factors:
Website Loading
Programming Time
Caching
Though, I am also on the look out for other benefits/disadvantages so please state them if you feel they are necessary!

When an entire site is created solely with JavaScript, it is most likely because the final HTML and CSS (created by the JavaScript) will always need to be different based on certain conditions.
Those conditions could be something that can only be determined by what the situation is at the server.
Or, it could be based on the type or version of the client that is making the initial request (this would allow for the JavaScript to create proprietary HTML and/or CSS, but only when a certain kind of client makes the request).
Many sites rely heavily on content coming from databases (eBay is a very good example of this) and those sites will often just employ JavaScript to contact the server and get all the information needed and then construct the page based on smaller HTML templates.
In short, it allows for the entire page to be dynamically generated based on current conditions.
However, from a performance standpoint, it would be slower for pages to load this way than to have static HTML and CSS at least for the bulk of the page structure. It would most likely take considerably more time to code the page and less content would be cached.
With today's modern standards like CSS3 Media Queries, page content can be conditionally shown. And with AJAX, portions of a page can be conditionally generated as needed, rather than the entire page being built that way.

I don't think so. There's a reason why most sites use HTML or PHP with javascript.

Using Javascript to do browser actions [closed]

Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
So, a while back I wrote a script in Python to automatically register me to classes in my school (by creating a browser with mechanize and signing in with my user/password and clicking the buttons etc)
lately I've been trying to learn JavaScript/html/css and I was thinking JavaScript would be better suited for such stuff, but I don't really understand the concept of how it will work yet, because the only way I've seen JavaScript used is linked from an html file and then run when you load the html.
I was wondering how would I create a standalone JavaScript to do those kind of stuff without html and how would I run it? (Do I download an interpreter of some kind?)
I could find information about that kind of stuff through Googling though i'm sure it's there I just don't know what this is called (tried web mining and web crawling but it doesn't seem to be it)

No, wrong use. If you are going to try to use JS externally to manipulate a browser page, you are going to have to open a web console on your browser then paste the code in, which is totally impractical.
Node.js does let one write Javascript that has full file system access, etc. to your computer, so this would be your best bet, but your question is pretty vague so I can't tell if this is exactly what you would need.

HTML5 rendering [closed]

Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
I always read something like HTML5 games etc. But I don't believe that a game is entirely programmed in HTML5 because it is just a markup language. Normally, it is controlled though JavaScript, right?
I want to program a very very simple browser game, that I can play with my friends. But I want to code the logic in Scala.
So I came up with this structure.
The client is able to see HTML in his browser. HTML5 will be manipulated though JavaScript which opens a connection to my webserver (AJAX?). Now I can program all my logic in Scala and let JavaScript execute it (for example move pawn from position a to position b).
This would be possible, right?
As a webserver I would choose Lift.
But I have never done any rendering with JS/HTML5. Would you recommend to look in some frameworks such as LimeJs or CraftyJs?

"HTML5" is commonly used as an all-encompassing reference to a set of specifications for client-side scripting language APIs, in addition to the core markup language that gave rise to the "ML" part in the name. So "implement this-or-that in HTML5" generally means something like do it in client-side Javascript, manipulating a DOM tree as specificied by HTML5 in order to present a user interface.
It is somewhat inconsistent/illogical naming, but standardizing on inconsistent illogical terminology is what this industry is best at. :-)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML5
HTML5 is a markup language for structuring and presenting content for the World Wide Web, and is a core technology of the Internet originally proposed by Opera Software.[2] It is the fifth revision of the HTML standard ... a mixture of features introduced by various specifications, ... software products such as web browsers, ... common practice, and the many syntax errors in existing web documents. It is also an attempt to define a single markup language that can be written in either HTML or XHTML syntax
HTML5 on its own cannot be used for animation and interactivity - it must be supplemented with CSS3 or Javascript
Sticking with your example developers typically define an API to access your data via your web server.
Javascript would be responsible for manipulating your view (html dom), so it would actually contain a big chunck of your game logic
webserver would contain your data model (maybe it would have logic for a robot player and its next move)
client is the browser

Don't the data attribute options used in Bootstrap, Angular.js, and Ember.js conflict with Unobtrusive Javascript principles? [closed]

Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
I've always been told it's good practice (ala 'unobtrusive javascript') separate JavaScript from HTML markup. However, I've been seeing the opposite trend with a number of new and popular frameworks such as Bootstrap, Angular.js, and Ember.js. Can someone tell me why this isn't considered bad practice?

Unobtrusive Javascript is a good practice for many places on the web. The frameworks you mentioned are often used for creating full-blown Javascript applications. In many of these apps, the experience without Javascript is often a blank page. In that environment, the value of separating your markup from Javascript is relatively low.

I'm asking the same question myself and have come to the following conclusion:
HTML is markup language for presenting documents. The semantics that everyone is referring all around is actually related to representing rich documents. This includes images and links that allow more richer experience.
The same principles can be applied to Word documents, where instead of marking a specific text as red, you can mark it as emphasis and then style the emphasis as red, which will be semantically correct way to express the intend.
The problem arises because HTML actually includes elements that allow user interaction - forms . The initial design was to allow non professionals to create simple interactive UIs. When I checked different desktop GUI frameworks there is no such thing as separation between actual view and view logic, because when you build GUI you don't need that separation.
For me the importance is how much of what you writing is content based or GUI based. Because the HTML serves two purposes it's difficult to know what to serve from the server.
Basically sites like Wikipedia, and even Stackoverflow are content oriented. This means that if they want to be accessible to broader range of clients, like bots and older browsers they should be able to stream pure html.
I'm thinking of two possible strategies when you want to provide content and some richer UI experience, like the textare where I'm writing this comment. The one is to server the html and then initialize the GUI. This is also referred as unobtrusive javascript and semantical HTML. This is what most content oriented sites do. This is mostly to be able to benefit from browsers and bots that will allow their content to be more accessible.
The other strategy will be to identify the type of client and serve different content, which can only be achieved reliably only on the client side, because in both cases html will be served. This is still close to the first stategy, because of the way HTML is used/abused as both content and GUI representation.
If you are writing an application that don't provide content but actual service/process then architecture like AngularJS and similar is suited better.
In my experience most business have to provide both. Let's say you have an app that uses HTML/Javascript to allow users to create drawings. This app doesn't need to follow any unobtrusive guidelines, but it won't be able to run on old browsers too. But if you provide a social sharing of the drawings between users, allowing comments and other content then it's better to write this part of the site in a way that bots and other clients can access the content easily.

Drawbacks of KSS [closed]

Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
Has anyone here used KSS?
KSS is an AJAX framework.
KSS has both a client-side Javascript library and server-side support.
The client-side Javascript library needs to be included in your page. It fetches Kinetic style sheets from the server, parses them and binds a set of action to browser events and/or page elements. It is clean Javascript code that can peacefully coexist with other clean Javascript librarys(sic) like JQuery or ExtJS. It is about 100k in production mode. You can integrate your own Javascript code by using its extension mechanism through plugins.
I'm currently working on a project that uses it. Are there any drawbacks and gotchas to be aware of?
What's its cross browser support like?
At first as was really put off by the fact that you don't write the JS by hand, and actually translates a CSS-like file to JS behavior, but seeing in action, I've got to say that it really works quite well. But I haven't done any cross browser tests yet.

Some things that I've found:
it sends HTML from the server, instead of XML and/or JSON and replacing them clientside, meaning higher messages (understandable)
it has problems with scripts that add iframes dynamically on a KSS widget that you reload
some things are hard to debug, while others are made easy thanks to KSS' integration with Firebug