52 replies

1. Zach Leatherman 8 min later

   apps are not allowed to have content, you see

   1. isaacs 9 min later

      @zachleat content must not be applied

      1. Zach Leatherman 11 min later

         @isaacs this emoji is the venn diagram of apps and content: 👀

   2. Dave 🧱 15 min later

      @zachleat a website that is a blank object

      1. Zach Leatherman 16 min later

         @DavidDarnes wow now I’m starting to understand the SPA white screen

      2. Robb 17 min later

         @DavidDarnes @zachleat A blank object, you say? Well, that's often very true if you turn off JS

         1. Zach Leatherman 18 min later

            @Robb @DavidDarnes we may have stumbled into the unified theory of JS

         2. Dave 🧱 20 min later

            @Robb @zachleat

   3. Laker Turner 15 min later

      @zachleat no posting allowed

2. p1xelHer0 15 min later

   @zachleat sounds like said framework author is trying to create drama content on the internets

   1. Zach Leatherman 17 min later

      @p1xelHer0 I now realize that OP source here was indeed from twitter 🧐

3. Stuart Langridge 22 min later

   @zachleat "I challenge you to define the difference between a webapp and a website that isn't just a vague list of best practices that "apps" are for some reason allowed to disregard." -- https://jakearchibald.com/2013/progressive-enhancement-still-important/ Nothing has changed about that in the ten years since @jaffathecake wrote it :-)

   1. Zach Leatherman 1 hr later

      @sil @jaffathecake time is truly a flat circle 😭

   2. infinite love ⴳ 4 hr later

      @sil @zachleat @jaffathecake

      arguably, a website has actual discrete hypertext pages that are often read only, while a webapp fetches and/or manipulates data while often performing actions

      so really, a webapp that shows content is just a browser-in-a-browser.

      but there are actual webapps that don't show content. stuff like figma maybe

      1. Zach Leatherman 5 hr later

         @trwnh @sil @jaffathecake I guess (arguably) I think that a web site can fetch and manipulate data while performing actions. Why aren’t Figma designs content?

         1. infinite love ⴳ 5 hr later

            @zachleat @sil @jaffathecake well "content" is probably a meaningless word but typically in the context of the web i meant "hypertext" and even if you extend the idea to embedded media, figma design files are not really "web" in any meaningful way (unless you create a sharing link). you could have it all native and nothing would change

            as for websites that fetch and manipulate data while performing actions, i think those cease to be websites. maybe hybrid website/webapp, but not purely a site.

            1. infinite love ⴳ 5 hr later

               @zachleat @sil @jaffathecake like the test for website is "does it have pages (as opposed to views)", "can it be edited (or is it only consumed)", stuff like that. it's all about programmatic functionality vs. viewing linked resources

            2. Zach Leatherman 5 hr later

               @trwnh @sil @jaffathecake

               well, why can’t a web site fetch or manipulate data?

               just fair warning it will take more than “because it would be a webapp” to convince me 😅

               1. infinite love ⴳ 5 hr later

                  @zachleat well, what is an "app" to you?

                  1. Zach Leatherman 5 hr later

                     @trwnh I don’t think `app` merits a separate classification—they’re web sites

                     but I have reached the end of my debate someone online that I don’t know budget—take care!

                     1. infinite love ⴳ 6 hr later

                        @zachleat have a nice monday :hotboi:

   3. Bolet, agente del caos 5 hr later

      @sil @zachleat @jaffathecake the best division I can think of is: Websites *display* content, but webapps also *create* content

      1. Zach Leatherman 6 hr later

         @juandjara @sil @jaffathecake

         what benefit does this dichotomy provide?

         1. Hans Gerwitz 6 hr later

            @jaffathecake @juandjara @sil @zachleat “sites” can be archived?

            1. Zach Leatherman 6 hr later

               @hans @jaffathecake @sil @juandjara apps can’t be archived?

               1. Hans Gerwitz 21 hr later

                  @zachleat @jaffathecake @juandjara @sil I would say if an “web address” can be meaningfully preserved as a PDF, it’s a site, otherwise an app.

                  I find that distinction meaningful, most other ways if drawing a line feel like purity policing. (Which I am sometimes guilty of, myself.)

                  1. Hans Gerwitz 22 hr later

                     @zachleat @jaffathecake @juandjara @sil probably I'm being an old, though, and should just give up on the content web and move to Gemini.
                     1. Zach Leatherman 23 hr later

                        @hans sorry to 5 whys you but I think the question I’d like an answer to is: meaningful how? for what? I think there is more gold in those answers

                        1. Hans Gerwitz 1 day later

                           @zachleat no worries!

                           Meaningful because a “site” is meant for information sharing across both space and time. It’s made of URLs that represent long-lived information resources meant to be linked to. It’s the WEB, FFS.

                           Apps are pieces of software that use www infrastructure for deployment. Which is a cool hack but should not be confused for being a member of the web-of-URLs.

                           They may coexist on a domain, mind you. But usually don’t.

                           (I am growing to think ActivityPub heralds a third category, of conversational “social” apps.)

         2. Bolet, agente del caos 6 hr later

            @zachleat @sil @jaffathecake I don't see it exactly as a dichotomy. I think apps can do everything sites can or should do, but something cataloged as an "app" is generally more interactive, whereas "sites" tend to be more "read-only"

            1. Zach Leatherman 6 hr later

               @juandjara @sil @jaffathecake sure, I could get on board with that, if it hadn’t been used almost exclusively as an excuse to cut corners on architecture

               1. Bolet, agente del caos 6 hr later

                  @zachleat @sil @jaffathecake and what is wrong with cutting corners if your use case is simpler ?

                  1. Zach Leatherman 7 hr later

                     @juandjara in this particular case, it originally manifested as a mess of client side rendered “single page apps” with a lot of bad side effects and continues to manifest as giant JavaScript bundles serving very little user benefit.

                     1. Bolet, agente del caos 7 hr later

                        @zachleat wow those are very big issues you are right

                        1. Zach Leatherman 7 hr later

                           @juandjara I… can’t tell if you’re being sarcastic 😅

                           1. Bolet, agente del caos 7 hr later

                              @zachleat I was not. It's true those are the problems of so called "app frameworks". But sometimes you have to decide what gets worked on if you have many features to ship and optimize later

   4. twifkak 9 hr later

      @sil @zachleat @jaffathecake Nice quote. I've long had an inkling to write a treatise on the false dichotomy between "doc" and "app". This one sentence spares me paragraphs.

4. Phil Hawksworth 1 hr later

   @zachleat Only spinners here, thanks

   1. Alex Russell 1 hr later

      @philhawksworth @zachleat It all makes sense when you substitute "the rich" for "apps" and "mere plebes" for "content sites"

5. Private reply 1 hr later
   1. Private reply 1 hr later
6. Andy Bell 1 hr later

   @zachleat why waste precious framework-caused loading time with content

   1. Zach Leatherman 1 hr later

      @andy tfw when the developer in developer experience is the framework author and not the app developer 🫠

      1. Andy Bell 2 hr later

         @zachleat lmao 😭

7. Sam Stephenson 1 hr later

   @zachleat toxic JSculinity

   1. Zach Leatherman 1 hr later

      @sstephenson Tony Stark wasn’t the only Toxic Avenger

   2. Natik Gadzhi 2 hr later

      @sstephenson @zachleat wait what have I missed?

      1. Zach Leatherman 2 hr later

         @natik @sstephenson when did you check in last 😅

         1. Natik Gadzhi 2 hr later

            @zachleat @sstephenson I _think_ that was yesterday? Anyway.

8. Eric Peterson 4 hr later

   @zachleat 🫤 I’d be happier if more frameworks made the distinction, honestly. Different paradigms with different goals that result in different architectural decisions. It’d be better to expose those assumptions as early as possible.

   1. Zach Leatherman 4 hr later

      @iamEAP to be clear—I agree with the first and third sentences—I want to see those red flags as early as possible in the marketing material

9. Mike Aparicio 11 hr later

   @zachleat THIS AIN’T YOUR GRANDPA’S FRAMEWORK