Languages: C++

Yeah, hard pass on looking at that code base.

“quick call?”

“sure, I’ve got time for the two hour meeting this is going to be.”

“I guess this is why real companies do regression testing.”

I’ve heard nothing but good things about HTMX

I’ve only ever heard anything “bad” about HTMX and it was here on Lemmy, actually. I ran into someone who was absolutely certain that HTMX was unsafe by design because it leveraged HTML over the wire and was therefore susceptible to HTML injection attacks, specifically by injecting malicious scripts that could be ran from domains you didn’t control. I tried explaining that proper utilization of access-control headers innately prevented this because they worked on the browser level and couldn’t be intercepted or interfered with by HTML injection by design, but he kept insisting it was unsafe while refusing to elaborate. He was very wrong, of course, but also very confident.

I do a lot of systems and backend programming and HTMX is the only way I can actually be productive with frontend work when I have to do it. It’s so simple and straightforward.

This is the only actual explanation I’ve found for why numpy leverages its own implementation of what is in most languages a primitive data type, or a derivative of an integer.

I think there’s a difference between “python guidelines encourage” something and “this is a common coding pattern.” Yes, you can use try/except for flow control, but there’s a lot of people, myself included, who try to use that style sparingly.

python guidelines

Do you have a specific PEP you’re referencing or is this one of those “I assume this must be the case because of how common using try/except statements for flow control are” kind of things?

I’ve heard similar from the worst first year CS students you could ever meet. People talk out their ass without the experience to back up their observations constantly. The indentation thing is a reasonable heuristic that states you are adding too much complexity at specific points in your code that suggests you should isolate core pieces of logic into discrete functions. And while that’s broadly reasonable, this often has the downside of you producing code that has a lot of very small, very specific functions that are only ever invoked by other very small, very specific functions. It doesn’t make your code easier to read or understand and it arguably leads to scenarios in which your code becomes very disorganized and needlessly opaque purely because you didn’t want additional indentation in order to meet some kind of arbitrary formatting guideline you set for yourself. This is something that happens in any language but some languages are more susceptible to it than others. PEP8’s line length limit is treated like biblical edict by your more insufferable python developers.

Yeah, but it’s still a Ship of Theseus problem. If you have a ship and replace every single board or plank with a different one, piece by piece, is it still the same ship or a completely different one, albeit an exact replica of the original. It’s important because of philosophical ideas around the existence of the soul and authenticity of the individual and a bunch of other thought-experimenty stuff.

You would have to functionally duplicate the exact structure of the brain or its consciousness while having the duplication mechanism destroy the thing it was reading at almost exactly the same time. And even then, that’s not really solving the issue.

It’s “y’all” - as in a contraction of “you all.”

If you don’t establish an encryption mechanism for secrets that allows for automatic, in memory decryption on deployment from the start of your project, then your project is run by incompetent developers/ops specialists/architects/management/etc. and deserves to fail.

“After I leave, this is going to be someone else’s problem.”

This demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of HTMX, and how websites in general operate. So much so that I would not hesitate to describe this as somewhere between a baldfaced lie and just malicious incompetence. You can’t “invoke logic via HTML attributes,” but you can describe it. HTMX is a client side javascript library that parses custom elements you define in your HTML and uses the data described by them to initiate AJAX calls via the fetch() or XMLHttpRequest browser APIs, which CSP explicitly covers via the connect-src directive: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/Content-Security-Policy/connect-src. It’s literally just a javascript library that parses HTML and uses it to parameterize AJAX calls. If HTMX were somehow able to bypass CSP, then every single piece of clientside JavaScript in the world could violate it.

“Wow, these screen doors really suck. I’ve stuck them on my submarine, but they just don’t keep the water out at all. Some people are going to say that I’m a fucking moron and don’t understand the technology I use or that I’m too goddamn lazy to actually take the necessary steps to keep water out of my submarine, but I know they’re wrong and it’s the technology’s fault.”

In all seriousness, HTMX is a tool designed for a specific job. If you have an API that has either non-parameterized endpoints to hit or an endpoint that accepts a single integer value or UUID or…whatever to perform a database lookup and return stored values to be interpolated into the HTML that endpoint returns, then, great, you’ve got a lightweight tool to help do that in an SPA. If you’re using it to send complex data that will be immediately and unsafely exposed to other users, then…that’s not really what it’s for. So, I think the core issue here is that you don’t really understand the use case and are opposed to it because to use it in a way that is beyond or outside the scope of its established convention is unsafe without extra work involved to guarantee said safety. It also implies you are running a website with a content security policy that either explicitly allows the execution of unsafe inline scripts or which does not care about the sources to which a script connects, which is the only way you could realistically leverage HTMX for malicious ends. So, ultimately, the choice to not adopt comprehensive security measures is one you are free to make, but I wouldn’t exactly go around telling people about it.

how HTMX works and what it does inherently bypasses CSP

Well, no, not really. All HTMX really does are AJAX requests to remote resources, which are performed by interpreting attributes in HTML. You specify the type of request and the target for updating. Those requests can sometimes contain parameters, of course, but any API that accepts any kind of conditional or user generated input has to sanitize that input before doing anything meaningful with it. This requirement isn’t something particular to HTMX.

You fundamentally are invoking logic via HTML attributes, which bypasses CSP

This is not true, though. You are manipulating the DOM via HTMX, but CSP has nothing to do with dynamic content manipulation. CSP is more concerned with preventing the injection of malicious code. If what you’re referring to, however, is the possibility of someone maliciously injecting HTML with HTMX that performs some nefarious action, then I have to ask (again) why you didn’t properly sanitize user input or limit the possible connection sources in your CSP.

If you have a specific example, however, of a way in which HTMX by design violates CSP that can’t be dismissed with “you coded your website poorly,” I would love to know.

I think we’re gonna have to agree to disagree on definitions. To me, and I believe, to most people, an SPA refers to a UI/UX design pattern that can be implemented with any number of underlying techniques. I would also say that the Wikipedia page for SPAs (on the assumption that wikipedia is a valid tool for establishing consensus for definitions) supports my definition:

A single-page application (SPA) is a web application or website that interacts with the user by dynamically rewriting the current web page with new data from the web server, instead of the default method of a web browser loading entire new pages.

There are various techniques available that enable the browser to retain a single page even when the application requires server communication.

And it goes on to list frameworks, AJAX, Websockets, etc.

A SPA is *generally *“rehydrated” DOM elements from JSON data pulled from an API though. Where as HTMX is more akin to classic AJAX style page dynamism.

You’ll forgive me if I say this is an instance of splitting hairs and having a particular definition for something that includes extra qualities separate from what those terms are actually describing for most people. Also, things like, I dunno, React, are going to extensively use ajax to accomplish what they do. It’s literally just asynchronous javascript. It’s like someone saying “my vehicle of choice is a motorcycle” and then someone else saying “A motorcycle isn’t really a vehicle. It’s a transportation device with wheels. A car is a vehicle.” They are both vehicles. They both have wheels. The wheels are ajax. A page made with htmx and a page made with React are both SPAs.

HTMX comes with a variety of CSP options, though…