6 ms·
> For me it’s a matter of elegance and simplicity over unnecessary complexity. Simplicity is having one place where the DOM is created and managed, and optimiz
by VMG 9y ago
> For me it’s a matter of elegance and simplicity over unnecessary complexity.
Simplicity is having one place where the DOM is created and managed, and optimizing for the 99% use case.
Complexity is splitting up DOM rendering over two networked systems for servicing a 1% use case.
Browsers are JS runtimes now. Get over it.
- hobs 9y agoNaw, I will keep running noscript and blocking script by default. If your site doesn't work, I don't care, I will go to a different one. I may be the minority now, and while there is some great use of js out there; most of it is bloated, slow, insecure, and often privacy destroying.
- saltedmd5 9y agoI honestly think the security/privacy arguments are the only valid argument against requiring JS as standard. The idea of browsers sending data that the user has explicitly elected to send (in addition to, if we're being pedantic, that the server put there in the first place) is very compelling in this day and age - only problem being that in order for that to have any meaningful impact on web security in the general case, you'd have to more or less universally deprecate JS support, which would set the web in a very different direction indeed.
- pasta 9y agoWhat about power consumption as another valid argument? Your battery will last longer without Javascript.
- VMG 9y agoIt will last even longer without CSS
- 4c2383f5c88e911 9y agoAnd most websites that work without JS also work fine without CSS. Almost like a pattern that can be found in properly built websites.
- VMG 9y agoWhy doesn't the market care? Where is the JS-less Facebook/Twitter/Airbnb competitor that blows the customers away with "properly built" websites?
- gpderetta 9y agoAs the number of people that won't put up with the JS crap anymore and start using JS blockers increase, we will see such websites. Same thing that is happening with ads and ad blockers.
- computerex 9y agoAd blockers are now going in the other direction with non-intrusive ads being shown.
- gpderetta 9y agoI would be extremely happy to use a JS block that allows non intrusive JS.
- alexseman 9y agoPrivacy Badger is what you're looking for. https://www.eff.org/privacybadger https://www.eff.org/privacybadger
- marssaxman 9y agoSo far as I know there has been exactly one such ad blocker released, and it was promptly abandoned in favor of the kind of adblockers people actually want to use. All ads are intrusive to some degree.
- saltedmd5 9y agoThat would be a valid reason to provide a JS alternative depending on context, not so much a valid argument for JS-free alternatives as standard. There will always be something you can do to reduce power consumption: expecting (or advocating) JS-free versions of all websites for that reason is a completely arbitrary line to draw.
- accountyaccount 9y agoIt will last longer without a screen too.
- madsbuch 9y agoNot all websites not using JS are good: http://www.theworldsworstwebsiteever.com/ http://www.theworldsworstwebsiteever.com/ It is not a question about JavaScript or not. It is a question about well developed site.
- accountyaccount 9y ago>I may be the minority now, You will also be in the minority later
- Spivak 9y agoSure, but the he only has to wait for the cycle to swing around again. Browsers will officially turn into JS/WASM runtimes. Sites will balloon until instant delivery is no longer feasible. Browsers will respond by allowing sites to version themselves to aggressively cache client code. Eventually browsers will start offering site-specific-browser features to 'new-modern' sites to combat the extreme waste of Electron and the like. Someone with political capital and influence in the developer world will realize that the web is still mostly text and design a browser optimized for that use case. It will be hailed as a revolution and people will start preferring it over the 'old-web' for accessing static content like news. Then under pressure from developers pushing the limits of static content they will include a simple, limited scripting language that promises to facilitate basic interactive elements and start the cycle anew. We should call it something trendy, maybe 'The River'?
- pmlnr 9y ago> Browsers are JS runtimes now. Get over it. Sure, dude, ignore anyone without a machine that can run MBs of JS within a reasonable time.
- madsbuch 9y agoThis is a question about JS vs no JS, not about optimizations of JS.
- pmlnr 9y agoThat is fair, but when was the last time when a js only site was running on optimized JS?
- madsbuch 9y agoAll google products. But it is ridiculous to disregard JavaScript because some people can't write it properly. It is the same as saying that I wouldn't use a browser because I once went to a website that displayed a popup.
- pmlnr 9y agoThere is a massive difference in downloading tonnes of JS every other day because there's a new React bundle and between having annoyance _once_.
- gpderetta 9y agoIt is not ridiculous, machine crippling JS malware is a click a way and you will never know until you click. The safe strategy is JS off by default plus whitelisting. > wouldn't use a browser because I once went to a website that displayed a popup you would use a popup blocker though.
- neurotrace 9y ago> machine crippling JS malware is a click a way I have been using the internet nearly daily for about 20 years now. I can't recall a single time I clicked on something that gave me "machine crippling JS malware". Barring some serious security gaps, JS isn't even capable of doing anything more than lock up the browser and maybe send some extremely minimal information about you back to someone elses server.
- nilved 9y agoYou're not vmg from Twitter, are you? This post is less reasonable than I would expect.
- VMG 9y agoI'm not
- Sean1708 9y agoI'd be very interested to see some proper analysis of the difference in speed between HTML/CSS vs just JS, it seems obvious to me that the former would be much faster but then again I know how often "obvious" things are wrong.
- thinkxl 9y agothe list of sites on https://hnpwa.com/ https://hnpwa.com/ vs this https://news.ycombinator.com/ https://news.ycombinator.com/
- SquareWheel 9y agoWould you prefer that Hacker News reloaded the page every time you voted on a comment?
- thinkxl 9y agoI wouldn't mind. But it doesn't work that way, look: https://vimeo.com/58808364 https://vimeo.com/58808364
- SquareWheel 9y agoInteresting video, but it still seems to be a JS-driven technique?
- kccqzy 9y agoEven without JS, there are tricks to make the upvote button work without refreshing the page. HN used to do this, not sure if it still does.
- SquareWheel 9y agoDo you have a reference to any of those tricks? Sounds interesting.
- marssaxman 9y ago> Browsers are JS runtimes now. Get over it. Sorry, I won't. I don't trust you and I won't simply run your code by default. It's not like I actually need whatever your web site wants to provide; there are plenty of other things to do on the internet.
- amiga-workbench 9y agoIf what you say is true, Gopher needs to make a resurgence, its immune to the kind of cancers riddling the modern web.
- lacampbell 9y ago100% of users want websites to load faster though - that's a fairly big market share. Obviously you can't make a web app without JS, but I still think you should minimise JS, or remove it if the site truly is static. It's just a better experience.