5 ms·

Pages load faster with JS disabled, show less advertisement and no popups. Browser processes take less memory. Social network tracking scripts (usually disguise

Pages load faster with JS disabled, show less advertisement and no popups. Browser processes take less memory. Social network tracking scripts (usually disguised as share buttons) do not work. Annoying fixed headers, footers and sidebar usually don't work without JS too. I got used to this comfortable way of browsing the web and seeing more sites that don't work without JS doesn't make me happy.

briandear 10y ago
I think the disconnect is that people have conflated websites with web applications. I fully expect an application to use JS because essentially you're providing (or attempting to provide) desktop-analogous functionality in the browser. However a "website" has the purpose of 'displaying information' -- essentially some form of text + images akin to a newspaper page. In those cases JavaScript is an enhancement but ought not be a requirement. For a web application though, not using JavaScript is like a car pulled by donkeys. Sure you can sit in it and try to steer but it doesn't provide optimal functionality. However on the other hand, anyone expecting a good web experience in 2016 without JavaScript is fighting a Quixotic battle.
- codedokode 10y ago
  You are right. There are web applications (like Google Docs) and simple collections of web pages (a typical Wordpress blog). I am not against JS or SPA architecture generally but I am against using complicated solutions for simple problems. Using rich frontend application to display just a list of links is obviously over-engineering.
JasonSage 10y ago
So you're in a memory-constrained environment, you can't be bothered to block social network tracking scripts by another means (some of those still load as pixels so you haven't gotten rid of them entirely), you don't like fixed headers, footers, or sidebars, and you're taking it all out on this site because the fastest way they could bang out their little idea did not include server-side rendering in the initial iteration. You're making a conscious decision based on the trade-offs at hand and saying that every website should double down on server side rendering to cater to your intolerance of how modern web browsing works. That's just not feasible.
- eeZah7Ux 10y ago
  3 billion people are in a bandwith, memory and CPU-constrained environment. 99% of websites can be written with or a minimum of javascript or not at all without losing any meaningful functionality.
- quickben 10y ago
  But the website is down right not. Everything is resource constrained environment. With exposure to larger traffic hitting various services comes experience to not do things like that. Somebody had to keep the world running and some of us do care for proper engineering approaches.
- codedokode 10y ago
  I have a feeling that with Chrome any environment gets memory-constrained pretty fast. I have 3 (three) gigabytes of RAM (that can hold over 3 billion bytes inside) available to OS, is that not enough?

briandear 10y ago

I think the disconnect is that people have conflated websites with web applications. I fully expect an application to use JS because essentially you're providing (or attempting to provide) desktop-analogous functionality in the browser. However a "website" has the purpose of 'displaying information' -- essentially some form of text + images akin to a newspaper page. In those cases JavaScript is an enhancement but ought not be a requirement. For a web application though, not using JavaScript is like a car pulled by donkeys. Sure you can sit in it and try to steer but it doesn't provide optimal functionality. However on the other hand, anyone expecting a good web experience in 2016 without JavaScript is fighting a Quixotic battle.

codedokode 10y ago
You are right. There are web applications (like Google Docs) and simple collections of web pages (a typical Wordpress blog). I am not against JS or SPA architecture generally but I am against using complicated solutions for simple problems. Using rich frontend application to display just a list of links is obviously over-engineering.

JasonSage 10y ago

So you're in a memory-constrained environment, you can't be bothered to block social network tracking scripts by another means (some of those still load as pixels so you haven't gotten rid of them entirely), you don't like fixed headers, footers, or sidebars, and you're taking it all out on this site because the fastest way they could bang out their little idea did not include server-side rendering in the initial iteration. You're making a conscious decision based on the trade-offs at hand and saying that every website should double down on server side rendering to cater to your intolerance of how modern web browsing works. That's just not feasible.

eeZah7Ux 10y ago
3 billion people are in a bandwith, memory and CPU-constrained environment. 99% of websites can be written with or a minimum of javascript or not at all without losing any meaningful functionality.
quickben 10y ago
But the website is down right not. Everything is resource constrained environment. With exposure to larger traffic hitting various services comes experience to not do things like that. Somebody had to keep the world running and some of us do care for proper engineering approaches.
codedokode 10y ago
I have a feeling that with Chrome any environment gets memory-constrained pretty fast. I have 3 (three) gigabytes of RAM (that can hold over 3 billion bytes inside) available to OS, is that not enough?