Why are websites so shit?

Competent and JQ-heavy.

not all websites are like this
maybe you were just visiting some shit websites

Because people must work, because UBI is way to JAR, because this all is just foreplay either to space exploration which will never happen until true internationalization or total darwinian genocide of all non-rich not-a-bee citizens.
This not about "normies", it's about keeping people occupied.

Attached: 4586890002_51f3dbd6fd_o.png (1024x680, 284.93K)

I don't know what websites you visit. Last fad of the month is static websites hosted on github pages (basically the new geocities), google analytics as visitor counter and Disqus as guestbook. All made with love and detached CMS's written in python, go or other hispter languages. WSYWG html editors are soooo 1992, everything is done in markdown and vim these days.
But You better tell me why there are absolutely no imageboards that work and implement all their functions in pure html+css. None of them, from kusaba to lynxchan work free of javascript at all. JS is still needed for: rendering post replies, adding second, third file upload forms, lightbox image previews, post deletion and moderation, reporting, hiding, and so on and so on. Even fucking captcha needs javascript 90% of times I see it.

Stop using insecure CIAnigger (((interconnected networks))).
Use Tor, i2p or virtual intranets like cjdns that respect your freedoms and right to privacy.

Question is if it is even a good idea to have imageboards run in the browser. Would it not be better to just download imageboard software and run it on your computer? Then you could just have a standard htlm+css page with some information about the software and some links.

Agreed. Either that or BBS over ssh.
Telnet was a joy, in simpler times.

How about you kill yourself

THE HORROR

There's a lot of BBS around, but most of them are telnet. But you could wrap that with ssl, or use ssh also.
Gopher is pretty limited, but it's very useful if you just want to provide a "file dump" type site. It has less overhead than http and is easier to deal with than ftp. It allows a small amount of server-side scripting too. A gopher interface to git/svn/cvs repos would make a lot more sense than all the nasty html+js most "open source" sites use these days. That stuff is pretty ironic since it basically shackles the user to web browsers that need amd64 with gigs of ram and GPU in order to run well, whereas gopher runs fine on a 30-year old computer or the puniest ARM SBC without GPU blob.

Attached: 167980-pimpwars-dos-screenshot-splash-screen.png (640x400, 6.61K)

Yes, horror indeed.

I just dislike companies going all in on numale JS frameworks like Angular or React. I feel it all goes against the original vision of hypertext. Just plain old linked documents. Modern websites are nearly impossible to navigate in text browsers too.

Attached: numale_lunduke.png (320x180, 74.37K)

are websites not already apps? (but in the browser for some weird reason)

That's because nobody wants to download and install some botnet onto their computer for every website they visit.

The web browser is like a file browser that browses files from the internet instead of your hard drive.

A suckless imageboard would be pretty cool desu.

Basically exists already: github.com/shwsh/textboard

why do you think the 2nd is better than the first?

Try doing this to the former.

Attached: Untitled.png (560x225, 15.46K)

Heres another one: kfarwell.org/projects/werchan/git/

Good point. Websites are easier to filter than software.

Though the main problem is that the website/software needs to be filtered in the first place.

For good software that does not need filtering I don't see use in running it in browser, but for botnet software that needs filtering running software on the websites is probably the lesser evil, you are right in this case.

Attached: cf7bb304e3439b44ecb808789c57bb1c68683c12.png (1024x768, 563.38K)

It's because of the UNIX philosophy, which encourages programs with their own memory managers because C sucks and UNIX IPC sucks. If we were using Lisp machines, there would be no JVM or JavaScript because Lisp already does all those things better. It would be insulting to make a language like that. The suckless philosophy is even further in the wrong direction than the usual UNIX philosophy. Read this quote about why GNU Emacs is larger than the original PDP-10 version.

That's more UNIX bullshit. A lot of languages were made so UNIX weenies don't have to use C, such as C++, sh, awk, Java, Go, Python, JavaScript, Perl, and Ruby. They would all be useless on a Lisp machine. They all have their own memory managers, type systems, and packaging systems and everything beyond C is completely incompatible. On a Lisp machine, there's one GC and one common type system so any program can use any data given to it by any other program. You can pass a function, class, or package between programs on Lisp machines more easily than you can pass strings in these languages on UNIX. Lisp would also be much smaller because there's a lot less duplicated code.

With respect to Emacs, may I remind you that the originalversion ran on ITS on a PDP-10, whose address space was 1moby, i.e. 256 thousand 36-bit words (that's a little over 1Mbyte). It had plenty of space to contain many large files,and the actual program was a not-too-large fraction of thatspace.There are many reasons why GNU Emacs is as big as it iswhile its original ITS counterpart was much smaller:- C is a horrible language in which to implement such thingsas a Lisp interpreter and an interactive program. Inparticular any program that wants to be careful not to crash(and dump core) in the presence of errors has to becomebloated because it has to check everywhere. A reasonablecondition system would reduce the size of the code.- Unix is a horrible operating system for which to write anEmacs-like editor because it does not provide adequatesupport for anything except trivial "Hello world" programs.In particular, there is no standard good way (or even any inmany variants) to control your virtual memory sharingproperties.- Unix presents such a poor interaction environment to users(the various shells are pitiful) that GNU Emacs has had toimport a lot of the functionality that a minimally adequate"shell" would provide. Many programmers at TLA neverdirectly interact with the shell, GNU Emacs IS their shell,because it is the only adequate choice, and isolates themfrom the various Unix (and even OS) variants.

This is some really interesting criticism on current technology. I'd like to see how the web would've ended up looking from a technology standpoint if LISP-Machines would've taken over instead of UNIX.

I love how we have all these people from the unix.haters crowd crying about how lisp machines are dead but not a single one of you has the technical expertise to fix this by writing a new lisp OS.

Attached: smug026.png (640x360, 305.74K)

Not bad, but now you have do everything manually, including copy & pasting quotes, post numbers etc.

You're probably young and don't remember the 1990s where all the web designers were using Dreamweaver and Frontpage. Those were the first giant doses of cancer that was injected into the Web.

the web was always shit. it just gradually gets shitter over time, and lots of time has passed. the web is like some stupid corporate idea of a platform like flash. it has no bearing on anything. literally the only good idea in the web is static HTML with hyperlinks, but even that is ghetto as fuck. like how do you even parse that shit. for starters it would be a great step forward if you had some markup format that was actually machine parsable as opposed to some crap with no standard aside from one that nobody follows

this nigga knows some shit

it would have looked like AIDS because LISP is AIDS when you start using libraries from 3000 different people. you really want something with a real type system like SML but for the entire OS

as long as you remember/pol/ is now an edgy GOP forum, r/t_D part deux

So why the fuck doesn't somebody make a modern LISP machine? That one faggot's been sitting on Genera forever, maybe somebody can cattle prod his ass and we can get it released?

For that matter where's my Smalltalk machine?

But turning a well-established communication medium into a dedicated application is a good thing. Look already existing messaging protocols like Email, XMPP or Matrix, are designed run in dedicated clients. Web is indeed a shit way of delivering bulletin boards. Yes, telnet and ssh are shit too.
We need something like slack, but with more asynchronicity in mind without going full usenet. Basically, it is possible to make a simple protocol faster than HTTP that delivers functions from anonymous textboards to full reddit-style megaforums and even comments for blogs. And if you need le perr-to-peer meme, connect it to a proxy that deals with such networks and acts a virtual server for software. On top of that, it would be finally possible to add encryption to forums via Axolotl which is impossible in web without running botnet javascript or third-party addons that are already like dedicated software themselves.

Implement Xanadu using HTML 4.0 only. Go, on, let us see.
Back in the 80's and early 90's people from warez and demoscene used to share diskmagazines. Every one of them was unique program, and not just a boring txt file or index like gopher. Treat web as works of art with hypertext capabilities.

Do you write OSes on your spare time? Are you Terry? No matter how simple whatever you're doing is, it's not simple enough if you're not shitting out boiler-plate. And unfortunately people don't generally take solitary hobbies as their main hobby. Otherwise we would have a ton of hobby OSes and software projects lying around.

I threw my hat in, but chances are I won't be drawn.

We actually to have a ton of toy OSes. These toys are nothing more than proof of concept and works of educational learning. Most of these kinds of toys don't advance beyond this.

That doesn't matter if the end result is browsable with plain HTML browser like Lynx or Mosaic. Speaking of which, a lot of webmasters tested their shit in Lynx back then. And for every bozo who used frontpage extensions or dreamweaver, there was another guy doing it by hand and putting "made in vi" button on his site. You don't see that much anymore now. There was also the "any browser" campaign that had a lot of traction. You don't see that stuff anymore because the poz has taken over almost every part of the web. Hell even the javascript back then was mostly used to implement non-essential fluff like animations, but the page still worked without them. And the few pages I remember having trouble with in the late 90's due to hardcoded javascript links (as opposed to using normal href tags) were easily dealt with by looking at "page source" and copy/pasting the javascript link url into browser's url bar. So even the few broken pages back then could be dealt with easily, if you really needed to. These days shit's all obfuscated with url generated at runtime, so no such luck to have an easy workaround. Plus there's just too many sites that do that shit these days, whereas back then most at least gave you a graceful plain html fallback mode if they even used javascript at all.

Sure, but the main complaint in those days was that it was no longer possible for a *human* to know what the code was doing. We've come a long way.

daily reminder that you faggots actually care more about features than if something is a bloated piece of shit or not, which is why you are posting using a 20 million line kernel, on a billions of transistors cpu, with a millions of line web browser, on a shitty php image board.

Zig Forums status:
B L O W N
L
O
W
N

T H E
H
E

F U C K
U
C
K

O U T
U
T

you didn't have to be so mean user

this is a complete and total straw man

it's like saying you can't care about the environment because you drive a car

People actually do care more about getting to work than they care about the environment. People don't actually give a big enough shit about the world to change how they act. At best they recycle and post about it on facebook.

Don't defend your worthless shitpost, just kill yourself instead.

You are just like those supposed environmentalists that complain about muh pollution all day while they drive around in their private car, and consume hundreds of gallons water every day with their hot showers. Its all about the bitching and not the cause.

OK user

bitch all day, glug down that soy milk, never change

I 100% agree with you.

The Lisp systems language was better than JavaScript is now and it had "scripting language" features like closures and hash tables built in, but Lisp machines are not the only thing that's better than UNIX. UNIX "has caused huge redundancies between software packages" by leaving out important features. The duplicate GCs and object systems in scripting languages are a small part of the huge redundancy in UNIX. The UNIX Haters figured all this out more than 20 years ago.

Lisp machines have a CPU designed to run Lisp with tag checking built in to speed up dynamic typing and GC. It's slower and needs a lot more code on different hardware. Remaking a Lisp machine is hard to do because we're not using the right hardware.

It would work with SML and Smalltalk.

This explains how the Lisp machines work.
people.eecs.berkeley.edu/~kubitron/cs252/handouts/papers/symbolics.pdf

Once one strips away the cryptology, the issue is control.UNIX is an operating system that offers the promise ofultimate user control (ie: no OS engineer's going to take away from ME!), which was a good thing in itsinfancy, less good now, where the idiom has caused hugeredundancies between software packages. How many B*Treepackages do we NEED? I think that I learned factoring inhigh school; and that certain file idioms are agreed to inthe industry as Good Ideas. So why not support certaincommon denominators in the OS?Just because you CAN do something in user programs does notmean it's a terribly good idea to enforce it as policy. Ifsociety ran the same way UNIX does, everyone who owned a carwould be forced to refine their own gasoline from barrels ofcrude...

Lisp is too expensive and hardware companies cannot be trusted in this age to create reliable and secure Lisp machines

Because lazy programming.

/thread

Because neither HTML, CSS, JavaScript or web in general were designed to be a GUI toolkit/platform.

Welcome to CY+3. Only now we can compute functional languages with bearable performance.

That's fearmongering. Lisp machine microcode could be changed by the user.

They're lazy because the systems programmers are lazy. Nobody cares if things work when the OS doesn't work. That way of thinking goes all the way from the kernel to the shell scripts.

You're missing the point. The web has huge redundancy and bloat because it does everything the OS does (or should do). Every programming language has to do the same things from scratch because the OS doesn't do it. Lisp machines have hash tables, closures, bignums, strings, arrays, exceptions, OOP, streams, and GC all there already and it's standard and every program can use it. You can pass a closure or hash table from one program to another without any kind of serialization or other bullshit. A Lisp machine has a systems language with the high level of scripting languages. I don't think everything should use GC and most OSes that I consider good don't have GC, but on the desktop we're using Python and JS so we already depend on the GC. Lisp machines are just taking away the bloat and redundancy that we don't need and making these features more powerful.

Up until recently, we owned everything from the hardware to the microcode to the applications. We could fix anything that broke at any level; we could evolve wonderful new systems. How do we "fix" the X11 releases or the SMTP protocol or SunRPC?? In my opinion, things got the way they are because market forces completely overwhelmed technological forces. Because UNIX was free (or nominally licensed) it came into wide use, first in CS and EE departments and later in the world. To some, moving from MS-DOS or worse, it seemed like a win. To those of us who have been around for a while and are aware of the alternatives, it seemed like a nightmare. We thought it would go away when users came to their senses. We were naive. Sigh. Meanwhile, thanks to BSD, UNIX grew like Topsy, or more like barnacles encrusting a sunken ship. Ultimately, UNIX began to be viewed by decision makers who were not technically competent as a panacea for competing technologies.

What I've been working on is a bunch of Greasemonkey scripts that fix all these sorts of javascript pages (greasemonkey scripts will work even with javascript.enabled = 0). For instance, I have one that removes all opacity=0, hidden=true, display:none from every image on the page, to deal with pages such as these: brokenbrowser.com/revealing-the-content-of-the-address-bar-ie/
Another one detects youtube embeds on the page (iframes which I block with umatrix) and converts them to links to the video. Another one does the same thing with embed.ly frames, converting them to an img tag. I have other site-specific ones that convert redirect tracking links into direct links. One script I'm planning on making will create a video tag using the direct media source from youtube-dl. I'm going to transpile it from python to javascript. I would have done it already, but I ran into trouble because the functions in youtube-dl for retrieving the media url are too tightly coupled with the rest of the program and the files containing them include modules or files that contain modules that can't be transpiled or that are inappropriate in a browser context (such as the os module.) So I have to write a script to crawl the import tree to retrieve just the necessary code for these functions. But hopefully when it's done it will mean all the video sites youtube-dl supports can be used without javascript. I'll probably clean these up and start putting them up on gitgud or something.

Because cucks are coders now.

Double Trips.

hahahahaha, you think the commie MIT crew is new?

Web pages weren't as shiny before Web 2.0, but they were functional and they flew. If you load a website with Javascript disabled and it's a blank slate, you're a shit web developer and part of the problem. Web browsers should be simple programs, and they were at one point in time. The majority of what I see out there is like looking at 400lbs whales that they show on TLC and people are happy and patting themselves on the back for needing 2GB to display a page.

Blazechan:
yes
You can upload multiple files with the file input
nope
not implemented yet
yes
yes
not implemented yet
on the form with JS, on a separate page without JS

Can't you make a Lisp machine with FPGA board?

Choose one and only one

Absolute state of niggerware in current year.
Is it so hard to put captcha iframe right under the reply box?
oh my. here goes the blazing speed

...

would be forced to refine their own gasoline from barrels of
crude...
That would be an improvement. It would make the actual car operators masters of their craft and weed out the retards on the roads.

Because that breaks the workflow. The captcha is an extension, it cannot add iframes to the post form without JS.

JavaScript ruined everything

We had websites made in Flash and Java before js/html5 took over.

Java wasn't used much, and the flash stuff wasn't nearly as widespread as the JS/HTML5 crap today. If a site used that shit, I could pretty much just write it off and not care. I even used non-JS browser for my credit union and ebay around 1999-2003. I would turn off JS in Netscape anyway because it crashed so much with that on. But I could pretty much browse most places in Lynx those days and it was comfy.

Dreamweaver had some pretty neat ways for generating clean static webpages with templates though. Also Dreamweaver was a 'dream' compared to anything frontpage rendered.

Sounds very suspicious, like something a terrorist would do. I'm going to have to bring you into the station for a chat.
blogs.oracle.com/tpenta/solaris-lynx-tsunami-relief-donation-terrorist

Basically a web browser - javascript - urlbar for each app. Servers will serve this standard html to your 'desktop app' via http b/c its standard and wide spread. What should we call this desktop app? I am going to call it a 'single purpose webbrowser', but you can just call it electron.

bump