3 ms·

I personally agree that sites with obfuscated JS are hard to read, and are pushing boundaries close to binary. I also think, it's absurd to use that as an argum

I personally agree that sites with obfuscated JS are hard to read, and are pushing boundaries close to binary. I also think, it's absurd to use that as an argument. Some sites are pushing shitty, hard to read code, sure. But instead of allowing them to continue working against the spirit of the system, we should shame them, and use them as examples of what not to do. If a couple of bad politicians abuse their system, we don't say "fuck it. lets go back to a monarchy"

sievebrain 10y ago
It's not "some" sites, it's nearly all. Heck I picked the front page of BBC News and opened it up. Wall of minified JS. Further down the page we see something that vaguely resembles normal HTML except for stuff like this: <div id=markets_index_promo class="hidden" data-comp-meta="{"id":"markets_index_promo","type":"remote-portlet","handler":"remotePortlet","deviceGroups":null,"opts":{"assetId":"10263779","id":"market_data\/markets_index_promo","loading_strategy":"post_load","position_info":{"instanceNo":1,"positionInRegion":3,"lastInRegion":false,"lastOnPage":false,"column":"secondary_column"}}}">
- GauntletWizard 10y ago
  It's no longer practical to ship source JS, if it ever was. Filesize limitations and frameworks that require recompilation are a significant chunk of the magic of the modern web.