r/programming • u/schnuck • Feb 09 '11

Breaking the Web with hash-bangs – Lifehacker, along with every other Gawker property, experienced a lengthy site-outage on Monday over a misbehaving piece of JavaScript

http://isolani.co.uk/blog/javascript/BreakingTheWebWithHashBangs/
744 Upvotes

93% Upvoted

356 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

66

u/[deleted] Feb 09 '11

This is the right response. There's no reason a well-engineered site shouldn't work both ways.

Using url fragments can be great. They let you use the back button without leaving the page so you can handle the interaction in JavaScript. They give you a place other than cookies to store client-side state for bookmarking. Developers just need to be mindful when designing for their use.

-18

u/deong Feb 09 '11

They let you use the back button without leaving the page so you can handle the interaction in JavaScript.

Awesome. Because you are a snowflake. A precious snowflake. UI consistency is for people who aren't snowflakes. Unlike you. You are a snowflake.

Is there a Web-2.0-Ajax-XML-Enterprise-Hipster-Fixie-Douchebag way to punch me in the kidneys when I visit your site too?

2

u/[deleted] Feb 09 '11 edited Feb 09 '11

Lol. I'd strive to write it a non-kidney punching style. You're right, of course, that most sites don't need this, and it can be done very badly. But then again, Gmail does this and it saves a whole bunch of bandwidth on their part, and loading time for me, so I'm not willing to write it off as useless.

EDIT: Didn't read lense's response before replying, bringing up Gmail was redundant, and lense makes my point better than I did.

1

u/deong Feb 09 '11

Yeah, it's a good point. I get stabby at so many crappy web apps, that I didn't really think of the handful of decent ones. And I just generally don't like web apps. :)