That is made by someone who had a Geocities website, or went 1000% in on MySpace back in the day.

React is probably overkill for most simple sites. You could still use JavaScript for some cool stuff without needing all the libraries and frameworks

The dependency hell of JS is caused by React. It’s an ironic turn because node gained popularity in part because it was one of the first to have a coupled package manager with a massive public contribution model, full of a billion packages that follow the unix philosophy of “everything should do only one thing, and do it well” Dependency hell would disappear if people stopped popularizing competing swiss army knives. It’s made worse by people trying to mash these swiss army knives together just to improve portfolio.

We’ve gotten to the point where you aren’t considered a real professional unless you start even the smallest projects with maximum technical debt.

It should never be impressive that you used a tool. If the tool made programming it easier then it’s not a mental feat. If the tool made programming it harder, then people should think you are kind of slow for using a tool that made development harder. This is why brag culture over what tools are used makes no sense. Just use tools that make life easier. If it doesn’t make life easier, stop using it.

I remember the wonderful feeling when Discord had a redesign in like 2017 or 2018 where they undid that awful gray-on-white design trend and made the text actually have contrast. These days the annoying trendy design thing is articles/blogs with extremely narrow width.

no i do not want to read paragraphs
that are this wide. this is making it
way more annoying to read. please
stop doing this.

at least Firefox has Reader Mode.

In the future there will be media queries for how old the reader is.

What devilry is this? Written word? Real cultures use oral history to store knowledge!

And some super advanced LLM powered text compression so you can easily store a copy of 20% of them on your PC to share P2P.

Nothing can be that advanced and zstd is good enough.

The idea is cool. With pure p2p exchange being a fallback, and something like trackers in bittorrent being the main center to yield nodes per space (suppose, there’s more than one such archive you’d want to replicate) and per partition (if it’s too big, then maybe it would make sense, but then some of what I wrote further should be reconsidered).

The problem of torrents and other stuff is that people only store what’s interesting to them.

If you have to store one humongous archive, and be able to efficiently search it, and avoid losing pieces - then, I think, you need partitioned roughly equal distribution of it over nodes.

The space of keys (suppose it’s hashes of blocks of the whole) is partitioned by prefix so that a node would store equal amount of blocks of every prefix. And first of all the values closest to the node’s identifier (a bit like in Kademlia) should be stored of those under that space. OK, I’m thinking the first sentence of this paragraph might even be unneeded.

The data itself should probably be in some supercool format where you don’t need to have it all to decompress only the small part you need, just the beginning with the dictionary and some interval.

There should also be, as a separate functionality of this system, search by keywords inside intervals, so that search would yield intervals where a certain keyword is encountered. With nodes indexing continuous intervals they can decompress and responding to search requests by those keywords. Ideally a single block should be possible to decompress having the dictionary. I suppose I should do my reading on compression algorithms and formats.

Probably search function could also involve returning Google-like context. Depending on the space needed.

Would also need some way to reward contribution, that is, to pay a node owner for storing and serving blocks.

Maybe a little JS, as a treat?

It’s fun for hiding little easter eggs.

The subset exists. What you’re referring to is an agreement or convention.

We have that, it’s called Gemini and is accessible with Lagrange

Some of these are extreme, but what you’re talking about is the https://512kb.club/, just keep it small, but no limits on what you can use.

A lot of websites can be static HTML + CSS.

Yeah they can, I can understand you might want to use something like php to not need to edit the footers and headers every page if you ever change them, but still.

I also like how some websites like Amazon.com refuse to add a payment platform which is more than a credit card checkout. Especially because their EU sites do have payment platforms with more options to pay. So then you have an over complicated site already with a lot of bloat and some amount of your consumers can’t even pay.

phpBBB??

Ththat’s different… you take it back!!

Might as well do no digital club and we exchange information through mail and pigeons.

Yeah it’s not exactly going to be WCAG AAA either.

I recently made www.timedial.org, using mainly HTML 3.2. I tried HTML 2.0, but the lack of tables, fonts and even text alignment was a bit too much.

HTML 2.0 doesn’t have tables, and tables are not so bad, even org-mode has tables.

Since HTML 4.01 was a thing when I first saw a website:

Being able to have buttons is good. Buttons with pictures too.

And, unlike some people, I liked the idea of framesets. A simple enough websites could have an IRC-like chat frame to the left and the main navigable area to the right.

And the unholy amount of specific tags is the other side of the coin for not yet using JS and CSS for everything.

I think an “RHTML” standard as a continuation and maybe simplification of HTML 4.01 (no JS, no CSS, do dynamic things in applets, without Netscape plugins do applets with some new kind of plugins running in a specialized sandboxed VM with JIT) could be useful. Other than this there’s no need in any change at all. It’s perfect. It has all the necessary things for hypertext.

CSS on the other hand is quite essential to separate layout from content. Which is a good thing, so I can’t really think of a reason for a “no-CSS” rule. Specifically if you can use inline styles as well but in a way more messy way.

A subset of css is cool, but man does it go too far.