I'm creating a webpage about Javascript-free web design

why would i want my stuff to be 10x less efficient
this shit isnt in a vacuum, if somebody has my website open that isnt the only thing they are doing
they probably have at least five other websites open plus other stuff on their desktop
15kb vs 150kb adds up very quickly over time for people who have limited data on their phones
etc etc
why should something take 150kb when you could make it take 15kb and run better that way?

it is my belief that javascript should not be used for styling, it should only be used for functions that aren't possible without it i.e. video streams, voip, live chat, etc

There are large portions of the world that still have dialup tier internet, so 15kB vs 150kB is significant if you're looking to max potential audience.

Not OP, but client side scripting in general is the cancer killing the web. Bloat, security issues, privacy problems, browser consolidation... it can all be traced back to the fucker who decided mixing untrusted computation into a data platform was somehow okay. Anything on the server side is fine however.

Tachyons css

the 150kb will get cached and downloaded only once. The average page is over 3MB (pic related, apple's page)

alo, the 150kb will be gzipped by your server and in reality it'll take only 40-50kb of their data plan.

But whatever, do what you want. But the CSS by yahoo even looks shit and I think they copyrighted it (BSD licence)...

github.com/pure-css/pure-site/blob/master/LICENSE.md

Attached: Screenshot 2019-02-12 at 11.27.23.png (608x372, 180K)

only once for my website, what about all the other websites that also had the bright idea of being 10x larger than they need to be that a user will have visited at the same time as mine?
40 to 50 kb is still about 3 times larger than the uncompressed 15kb page
what about places with poor cell reception, where they can only load data at ~10kbps? where i live is filled with hills and mountains, so i know this feel
its not the best, but its a starting point
its better that your "lol just let your page size bloat up to 3MB like everyone else does who cares"

10,000 users daily @ 150KB = 1.5 GB of bandwidth.

While 15 KB @ 10K = 150 MB.

And thats just the CSS. With images/media from your server, bandwidth cost quickly addup.

bulma.io/

Attached: 1488718987398.jpg (750x720, 42K)

Jow Forums uses ~19 kb for css.

If you expand that to 27.7M unique users per month, that's 526 GB bandwidth for css alone.

If css was 200 kb, the bandwidth floats to 5.5 TB.

Very expensive.

nanochan
nanochancsvnej4vxiidu4fhpchkxffl3mgqypub63xadeetkjttavqd.onion
nanochanxv2lxnqi.onion

well, if you use a popular library, you can use a cdn link for it...

yes, but optimising images can save you much more and it's faster

it isnt one or the other
you can do both

Attached: nanochan.png (600x271, 14K)

The issue is not optimizing css, not not optimizing images.

ah fuck

I'm not against optimizing css, but my thinking is it is not very wise to waste time on it right away. Specially if it's a new project.

So, you mean that its faster to do a full pageload, every time you do an action, instead of loading partially elements asynchronous?

personal favorite for projects is codepen but theres still shit ton of js there. you can sort some pure css gems there tho

i think its better to start small and build up rather than start big and try to slim down, no?
uh, no? where did i say that?

sr.ht uses CSS to do some fancy stuff

user, I can tell that you're retarded neet who wastes his time on video games or learning shit like how to program in brainfuck or ricing your gentoo installation.
If you want the job, use every JS framework in existence on your website.
Otherwise everyone will think that you're not good enough and will tell you to get gud.

There's no point in doing this unless you are purging all javascript.

>i think its better to start small and build up rather than start big and try to slim down, no?

not in my opinion. I'm doing a complex react project with bootstrap and knowing the classes + the new bootstrap helper classes just make it much faster...

So it's much better for prototyping, specially if you change things often...

Another example is selling your work. If the client didn't pay you for optimisations and has small traffic, you are just better off using one of the popular libraries.

You should check out Reactstrap. I use it and it's pretty nice.

looks pretty basic, but maybe i have to sign up to see what you mean
not gonna do that since it requires an email
you got screenshots of what you mean?
oh good god fuck i dont want a webdev job
im not a masochist
i do this stuff for myself and my own small projects that i work on when im not at work
if i were to, say, offer web sites hosted on my own server, would it not be in my own best interest to optimize the sites as much as possible to save myself money and computational resources?
anyway, start small and build up as necessary is how i approach all projects
waste not want not, use what you need and nothing more
a running theme in my life
i guess its a pretty rare disposition
makes me sad kind of

made my own components already... I'm not sure I won't change bootstrap for my own CSS in the future. Specially since flex box is now supported on most browsers.

There are tools that can analyse your your html/js code and purge unused classes from your CSS...

github.com/purifycss/purifycss

The checbox hack.

Imagine reading a book with javascript.

>https

BLOATED AND BLUEPILLED

Not exactly what you asked, but it's probably interesting for you: roca-style.org/

>dont bother locking your doors, they will just take to them with an axe

youmightnotneedjs.com/

you're the reason why 90's themed websites are allowed to reach over 15MB for a single page

There used to be a list of js-free css frameworks/libraries. I might be able to post it in a few hours when I'm home.

Based and redpilled

doesnt ssr solve the bloat issue?

Polish chan that works without js(You have to disable JS to access it)
wilchan.org/b/