3 ms·
If a website doesn't have at least minimal functionality (i.e. the article can be read), then the website is broken. Fortunately, most websites that aren't comp
by pdkl95 10y ago
If a website doesn't have at least minimal functionality (i.e. the article can be read), then the website is broken. Fortunately, most websites that aren't complete trash work ok without JS. Very few websites need to have their JS whitelisted, which only has to be done on the first visit.
Running unknown programs from random hosts on the internet - even in a limited environment - is a bad idea. Fortunately, documents (including images, audio, video, etc.) do not need Turing completeness. A lot of people will react strongly against the idea of not using JS, often because their income depends on tricking users into running spyware/malware,
- romaniv 10y ago>If a website doesn't have at least minimal functionality, then the website is broken. Curious. This goes completely against the sentiment in all of the discussions around modern SPA frameworks and JS libraries I've seen on this very website. It seems that for most fronted devs today JS is a natural prerequisite for using their product. Progressive enhancement is often sneered at[1] as impractical and unnecessary. This leads me to believe that there are two mostly disjoint groups of people commenting on this issue in different threads. --- [1] - Good example: https://www.viget.com/articles/the-case-against-progressive-enhancements-flimsy-moral-foundation https://www.viget.com/articles/the-case-against-progressive-...
- pikzen 10y agoTheir landing page doesn't work without Javascript. It doesn't load images without Javascript. And they're advocating for no PE. I don't know which world JS devs are dragging us in, but it certainly looks shitty and ignoring every single thing software engineers have learned in the past thirty years.