[Chat/2018/72]

[Chat/2018/72/1]

  • Author: 8z8WryPq

Ay, Prettyboy. What'd you think about making a "real-time" board (or making [Chat] real-time) with RAL v1.0? I know you said IRC is already a real-time BBS but I think 1.0 was really nice. It made RAL unique compared to the other textboards...

[Chat/2018/72/2]

  • Author: QjdxW05o

It's a silly question but whatever

[Chat/2018/72/3]

  • Author: u//NSrlE

probs need a single-page application framework like Angular or some shit, but then it'd lose the 90s charm

[Chat/2018/72/4]

  • Author: jOLz3p8+

The problem with real-time updates is that HTTP is not really meant for transmitting data like that. Real-time updates are only meant for protocols which support always-on connections like SSH, IRC, FTP, etc.

There are extensions to HTTP (WebSockets namely) that will allow you to do this but it's generally agreed to be a bad idea to rely user-agents supporting Javascript.

[Chat/2018/72/5]

  • Author: R4/s94CB

I was talking about using RAL v1.0 for it, guys. I said "real-time" because
Prettyboy referred to 1.0 as real-time. He already has the software for it. Here's a screenshot of v1.0.
RAL was innovative in that it was the first and only real-time BBS...
— Prettyboy

[Chat/2018/72/6]

  • Author: IepbKn+z

Would live board be a more appropriate term?

[Chat/2018/72/7]

  • Author: 3J5xHdI+

"it's generally agreed to be a bad idea to rely user-agents supporting Javascript"

nobody aside from a few neckbeards runs NoScript

in the real world, people have modern browsers with javascript enabled, so front-end frameworks like Angular are fine

[Chat/2018/72/8]

  • Author: 0bKNOYUY

nobody aside from a few neckbeards runs NoScript
— 7

A few neckbeards are marginal... actually you probably don't want them posting anyway.

More broadly than NEETs, the trouble with using JS to render content is that most web-crawlers and downloading / archiving utilities (e.g. wget) don't run Javascript; it's just an issue of accessibility. Javascript is fine to use as "icing on the cake"; just don't use it as the basis for rendering content.

[Chat/2018/72/9]

  • Author: Qi+Os65i

Not 4, but I don't think relying on JS frameworks and WebSockets is good either. It wastes some unnecessary bandwidth and makes it lose the 90s vibe, as 3 said.

[Chat/2018/72/10]

  • Author: S9N+akxb

breaking archival stuff, huh? well use some sort of backend templating engine to put some static content in a <noscript> tag then, which displays when javascript is disabled