Javascript Data Binding

[osgood_]

Probably the wrong forum but I'm trying to get some views.

If we are to use these new data binding javacript frameworks are we supposed to forget any possibilty that javascript may just be turn off. (I'm really not that concerned as that will apply to a small minority)

But of particular interest, is server-side validation a thing of the past - we used to do both client-side validation (the pretty stuff) and then run it through the more robust server-side validation.

Is there still any point in using a fall back server-side validation solution if what we see on the front end (assuming someone has javascript turned off) is some kind of rubbish like the below where data should be bound:

{{ formSubHeading }}

{{ showError }}

{{ responseMessage }}

The problem gets even worse if one uses a button to submit because that wont work.

<button v-on:click="submitForm">Submit</button>

Any one got any views about it?

My thoughts are if we didnt use javascript data binding but just javascript - no binding the page would still look ok and no-one would notice any difference.......it degrades gracefully and the server-side validation is in place to take over, no weird shite gets written to the page.

Maybe there is a way of hiding the {{}} in such circumstances.

My real question - is client side validation now considered to be just as robust a solution as serve-side validation given that no one gives a toss about the minority that may not have javascript. Can I just move on and forget server-side validation or if not how are you guys that are using data-binding getiing around the possibility of this {{ blahblah }} stuff being plastered all over the page plus elements that are hidden/shown using true or false:

<div v-if="showError">This is and Error</div>?

showError: false;

Well its going to show if no javascript, that could apply to numerous elements - what's so good about these frameworks, the more I delve into them they seem to me to be a bit flawed. I think they are good BUT only if they are pretty water-tight which means they need to be reliable in 99% of situations, are they?

Os

[osgood_]

pziecina  wrote

The problem with asking me Os, is that I would probably be bankrupt within a year if I had to develop sites such as yourself and Ben, (as examples) develop.

Luckily I don't have to make a living doing this anymore, otherwise I would be bankrupt. The last few years in particular I've becoming disillusioned but I still like to keep up to date with what's going on in terms of current workflows. I have retained a handful of clients which I plan to service until they go and then Im not plannng on taking on anymore. I let a few go early in the year because I got tired of it all.

I may just drop back a bit and start producing these simple static 1 page vue js sites for £500 quid for a couple of days work where I can concentrate on the design more rather than the technical backend aspects, design is where I originated from so its close to heart.

That's my plan, if it doesnt happen it doesnt hapen, that means more free time in the pub, which for me right now is a nicer thought than beating myself around the head trying to constantly figure all this stuff out.

pziecina  wrote

I've become so use to developing for 'blue chip' organisations, that normal cost considerations for other types of sites, do not even come into consideration for me. I still do not understand why anyone would make development complexed though, no matter what type of client they have, or type of site they are developing.

Well cost always comes into it when youre dredging the bottom of the lake. But there are more bottom lake dwellers than there are those closer to the surface.

I agree about why make it more complex than it needs to be especially in cases which don't warrant it, which is probably the majority.

pziecina  wrote

And I certainly cannot understand why any framework would be used over the use of web standards, (html, css, etc) if the same can be done using web standards, (I have yet to see anything that cannot, js disablement not withstanding).

That's the puzzle. I can only assume because that is what is being taught now and pushed as the next/current trend so its what is happening. All over the web you have cries of dont use php, use node or phython, don't use jquery, use vanilla javascript or react, vue etc that's were it all starts fromm and young developers buy into it, of course.

Lots of youtube channels which were php centric have shut up shop over the last couple of years because I guess its popularity has become less..........its a snowball effect.

[pziecina]

osgood_  wrote

You can't analyse something which doesn't yet exist. If you are updating a current website then that is possible.

The idea of analytics is to help one decide how a typical user, (for current and future sites) is using the web. It does not matter if the planned framework usage is implemented or not, what does matter is that the statistics gained will give you a good indication of how your current clients sites are being used, and that a similar type of client can expect a similar type of end user.

I know some developers will build a site for anyone and think they can cater for any type of site, but that is rarely successful, as knowing at least something about the clients targeted user, (products, etc) does make for a more targeted type of development, (maybe that type of developer has also died off?).

[osgood_]

pziecina  wrote

I know some developers will build a site for anyone and think they can cater for any type of site, but that is rarely successful, as knowing at least something about the clients targeted user, (products, etc) does make for a more targeted type of development, (maybe that type of developer has also died off?).

Unfortunately I think that accounts for most web-developemt firms and me unless youre priviliged to be working for some blue-chip organisation.

I mostly build websites for travel companies but ocassionally companies not connected with travel and who currently have no current website come along so in those circumsatnces I have no background information about what kind of user is likely to be visiting their website.

Young or old could be paranoid about security, its not something thats easily analysed.

[osgood_]

pziecina  wrote
osgood_   wrote
The 1st point - If you can present the end user with a solution that will always work, then why use a solution that may not?

Like I said I'm just trying to be ******* current and pretty stupid.............maybe like the rest of the idiots in denial out there.

[B i r n o u]

I think that the question is itself truncated or misinterpreted... we're not talking about JS... as a language taken into account or not by the browser... we're talking about data-binding, we're talking about AJAX techniques, we're talking about advanced user interaction... we're just talking about web applications...

When a developer develops an application that will be installed on a machine, does he wonder if this user has a machine that will be impacted by the lack of components needed to run the application??? no, I don't think so... so a simple NOSCRIPT tag displaying an alert message that says JS activation is necessary to use this service should be largely sufficient and understandable...

I wanted to play on network but I disabled my internet connection and I couldn't play... uh... I got a message informing me that I needed to be connected in order to play on network... funny, ins't it;)

[osgood_]

Its a fairly simple question but if you choose to make it complex then thats your choice. Perhaps that is what is wrong with web development in its current state, there are no finite answers which is why more and more, if you read the blogs and posts, are struggling in terms of what to use and what not to use, drowning in a murky sea of confusion as there is little to no clarity being offered, only personal opinions.

[B i r n o u]

osgood_  a écrit

Its a fairly simple question but if you choose to make it complex then thats your choice. Perhaps that is what is wrong with web development in its current state, there are no finite answers which is why more and more, if you read the blogs and posts, are struggling in terms of what to use and what not to use, drowning in a murky sea of confusion as there is little to no clarity being offered, only personal opinions.

youps, sorry I didn't think I answered in a complex way... I thought I was explicit enough...

so said very succinctly...

In the framework of my work, I do not create web site, only web applications........ that is to say that I rely heavily on data-binding, a real massive usage of AJAX, plus quite complex interfaces in components of all kinds... and for that if the user has disabled JS, he then receives a message informing him that to be able to execute this application it requires the activation of JS....

so yes I use JS in web apps, yes I use the NOSCRIPT tag to inform user that JS is necessary, and ys that works like a charm... and every one is happy that way... either those that tunr JS off...

is it clearer?

[osgood_]

Yes, thank you, got there in the end. I can put you in the category of not worrying about the small minority of users with javascript disabled and the category of those developers that feel data binding brings something to the workflow ........kind of my feeling to be honest.

Im not against data binding frameworks as l can see something good going on there for some developers, maybe myself as well. I need more time to assess if l can see through all the added code needed within the html or not. As you know l like to keep my html code as clean and free from clutter as possible.

[B i r n o u]

osgood_  a écrit

As you know l like to keep my html code as clean and free from clutter as possible.

give a try to PUG under NodeJS

[BenPleysier]

Just to make it interesting, have a look at the workflow of this long time back-end coder. He uses a Vue.js type framework.

Wappler Video Traning Part 9 - Updating Records to your Database with Wappler

As a warning: I went through 2 Havanas and 4 Courvoisiers while watching the video.

[osgood_]

lol

l started to watch some of those vids when Paul released them but quickly fell asleep, probably because l have little interest in Wappler in its current state.

If the coding environment is ever improved in future updates l think it just might be of interest. At the moment its pretty poor if you work in code 8+ hours a day and l would never have the patience to use design view to get anything onto the page.

Shame really because behind a fairly lame code editor lies some interesting extensions if youre that way inclined and who knows as l come to the end of my time, never say never.

[osgood_]

I dont use build tools, that then just clutters up the site folder, why l decided not to go down the route of using the vue CLI workflow approach.

For the kind of websites l produce l think its way overkill but granted some developers seem to revel in overkill even to produce the simplest of jobs......their choice

Theres enough in vue to make it interesting by just using the CDN approach and until js support of import is stable l will just link plain js  files to inport components.

Anyway thanks for the info.......node is probably the way to go but the workflow is not consistant with how l like to do things. Who knows maybe one day but for now l like to keep things sweet and simple.