ttuegel at mailbox.org
Sun Jun 17 16:12:40 UTC 2018
Imants Cekusins <imantc at gmail.com> writes:
>> doesn't seem to be any particular reason to
> require JS for basic functionality on a documentation site.)
> Js is widely used these days. E.g., ReadTheDocs use Js .
but it is not a _reason_ to use it. I don't see anything about the
(mostly static) Cabal website that motivates its use. I will discuss
that more below.
> For someone with basic React knowledge the website is easy to maintain.
This statement sounds like you are volunteering to create a new website,
but not to maintain it. Is that what you mean to say?
> SPA arch allows for faster navigation between the pages. Client side
> rendering frees up the server.
In this instance, SPA seems like a solution in search of a problem.
There is nothing about the static content of the Cabal website that
would motivate using SPA. I find the claim dubious, but let us assume
that SPA would lead to faster page navigation; is page navigation too
slow now? Likewise, client-side rendering may free up some server
resources; is the Cabal website server-resource bound now?
To my untrained eye, the motivation for the new design seems to be
neophilia. That's good for an experiment, but I don't see the motivation
to adopt it. What does this redesign offer to our users? What does it
offer to us?
More information about the cabal-devel