if learning javascript is your goal then this is a good place to start:
Most of this sounds like rudimentary HTML+CSS. Tbh you don't even need JS, but that would require some server-side trickery for the sorting and filters. If you do use JS, you shouldn't need any fancy frameworks, nor will you need to write much code for it.
em, positioning elements using precise coordinates, etc.. If you don't use absolute positioning, you can think of the structure of your page as a resizable grid where individual tiles/elements are positioned relative to each other—arranging boxes inside larger boxes, essentially.
welcome to pop sci, home of the least accurate secondary sources
rules for how to write js:
"new variant of well-known weird image compression technique just dropped" is not something a retarded normie would click though so i sort of understand the absolutely retarded clickbait
I don't necessarily mind, part of good science communication is an appropriate degree of pageantry, and it can be tricky to find that balance. The thing I don't like is when a secondary source doesn't just link the paper and I have to hunt it down myself
"Responsive" as a buzzword really pisses me off. It evokes a lot of dynamic, animated imagery when it just means writing a resizable layout properly.rules for how to write js:
for the documentation on the various gay web apis you want to abuse, see the mdn. congratulations you now know all there is to know about javascript
- don't
- if you think you do, think again--a lot of the time you actually don't
- use arcane css magic to implement your retarded widgets using exactly 0 javascript because javascript is to be avoided at all costs
- if you really do need js for something, make it as unobtrusive as humanly possible
- page 99% works without js? you're doing it right (web niggers call this some gay shit like "progressive enhancement")
- if you're trying to make a huge application on the fucking browser for some reason, compile it to webassembly and use js as shitty glue. you can also have a native build of your shitty app if you set it up properly
this is the whitest possible thing you can do
responsive is literally the default state of the web if you paste that one meta tag and then proceed to not fuck everything up
IMO the current best state of HTML for "responsiveness" is HTMX, if done properly. No need to reload the entire page, just replace one element with whatever comes back from the server, if JS is enabled, otherwise do the damn reload and be done.
this looks fucking gay when you could just keep it simple by always loading a whole new page when you click a new page
This is not what responsive means in a web context. Responsive design has nothing to do with speed. Responsive design is about creating something that is designed to look good on both mobile and desktop. The meta tag that defines a responsive page is as follows:
<meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0" />pop that on a raw html page and it will instantly look quite good on mobile
i think it's a good idea to not have ~70-char lines on mobile because those screens are quite small and fitting more characters per line needs small font sizes
i need to learn tex one day
You argue for the status quo which is fine but I was reading books at 100+ chars a line on 540px wide phone screens from a decade and a half ago. I'd rather the typesetting standard than mobilefag notions of propriety.
LaTeX or just raw TeX? Also, here's an article about the WYSIWYM (what you see is what you mean) editing software LyX that may be just for you:
\ while giving us full power of LaTeX."
Rawdogging tex would certainly be a choice.
I was thinking along the lines of using it for loading the next page on a paged list of results. And there only as a form of progressive enhancement.
Yep, totally my fault. I thought x when it was y.
I suck at CSS and have to use Bootstrap to make things responsive. I don't know how much it degrades without JS though.