My javascript user metric collecting service says all my users have JS...
Imagine that :P
> any rational business will refuse to invest resources to serve your unique needs.
I'm not convinced that's rational, but all the same. Any rational engineer would rather do the job correctly, rather than what's easy. Which is what the argument comes down to. One the minimum always works, the other way is easier (for you).
> If my current frontend framework of choice happens to not render any HTML without JS, I am sorry, my site will be inaccessible to you.
Don't be sorry in this case, if this is the tradeoff you've decided to make. That's totally fine. It's your project, and your code. You absolutely should make the decisions you think are best. I'm just some random idiot on the internet who thinks your decisions are bad, and your framework is a dumpster fire waiting to implode. I like to write code that works, and I think code that works in every case is objectively better than code that works in most cases, and is easier to write. But I suspect the code we write and projects we care about are very different.
The difference seems to be that I care more about the code than I do about the cash. You frame all decisions from the context of a business trying to make money. You're right when you say:
> Because that frontend framework allows me to iterate much faster and improve my product for the vast majority of users.
That is probably the best way to make the most money with the smallest expense. But I have a different set of standards for the work I do. And just to be clear, please note I didn't say my standards for my work are better than yours, only that they're different.
Image a user that would like to access your website using an even older setup than simply no JS, let's say he's using lynx on a 50 by 20 character ssh session on an old Android phone with a broken keyboard.
Your website will look like shit, it will be absolutely unusable and the user will have a mental breakdown.
If you counter that your website is only one line of text that says "Hello world!", and that would work on my imaginary lynx setup, let me counter as well:
I am now a user that has no computer at all. I would like to access your content by calling. Where is the phone number I can call to talk to a human in my language, at 03:30am in the morning?
Remember, not everyone is using the latest technology! A company should be accessible even if the user doesn't have WASM/React/JS/CSS/HTML/HTTP/TCP/a computer/a Chomsky universal-grammar based spoken language/...
I think we all have edge cases we simply cannot serve. I agree that there might be different thresholds, though. :-)
My javascript user metric collecting service says all my users have JS...
Imagine that :P
> any rational business will refuse to invest resources to serve your unique needs.
I'm not convinced that's rational, but all the same. Any rational engineer would rather do the job correctly, rather than what's easy. Which is what the argument comes down to. One the minimum always works, the other way is easier (for you).
> If my current frontend framework of choice happens to not render any HTML without JS, I am sorry, my site will be inaccessible to you.
Don't be sorry in this case, if this is the tradeoff you've decided to make. That's totally fine. It's your project, and your code. You absolutely should make the decisions you think are best. I'm just some random idiot on the internet who thinks your decisions are bad, and your framework is a dumpster fire waiting to implode. I like to write code that works, and I think code that works in every case is objectively better than code that works in most cases, and is easier to write. But I suspect the code we write and projects we care about are very different.
The difference seems to be that I care more about the code than I do about the cash. You frame all decisions from the context of a business trying to make money. You're right when you say:
> Because that frontend framework allows me to iterate much faster and improve my product for the vast majority of users.
That is probably the best way to make the most money with the smallest expense. But I have a different set of standards for the work I do. And just to be clear, please note I didn't say my standards for my work are better than yours, only that they're different.