>right click view page source on Facebook

>>59936710
Genuinely funny. I've actually seen some webpages that look like they are void of any CSS that look as terrifyingly complex as FB.

>>59936710
>>59937674
Correct me if I'm wrong, but these pages are dynamically generated.
So it's not meant to be read by humans.

>>59937746
You stupid are

>>59937746
Yes, this.
Still fucking disgusting.
Elegance can be maintained in procedural generation.

I think the only reason they keep so much separate is for "easy debugging" or some other shit.
All those SCRIPTs could be concatenated in to one very easily, for example.
Having a separator comment to split up distinct script chunks is very simple to do.
Something like // ###### or along those lines is very common for splitting large documents in to groups.
The funniest thing though is Facebooks devs are so fucking clueless that their templating engine is high-overhead as fuck.
This is why it is slow as shit in say, mobile or tablet browsers, hell even netbooks now.

Google have equally shitty code on their pages.
Go inspect element on the Gmail page and have a skim through some of the JS. Holy kek.
The funniest bit there is code like that is REALLY FUCKING HIGH OVERHEAD, which is why Gmail got slow all those years ago, and recently made Street View impossible to use on netbooks and computers from that general area.
Deep-enclosure code is the JavaScript killer.

>>59939180
>I think the only reason they keep so much separate is for "easy debugging" or some other shit.
Also, to prevent the 1337 looking at the source and exploiting javascript.

>going on normiebook

#wow #whoa

>>59939619
Should have been the first post.