4 ms·

It's funny how devs feel threatened by a non-JS trend. Even when their favorite frameworks are providing tools to accomplish minimal functionality when JavaScri

It's funny how devs feel threatened by a non-JS trend. Even when their favorite frameworks are providing tools to accomplish minimal functionality when JavaScript is off. Server side rendering has been a big priority in React, Vue, Redux, ReactRouter, etc.

BaronSamedi 9y ago
As a rule, people tend to support the status quo--even when the status quo is problematic. I would argue that there are good reasons for thinking that the current widespread use of JS is problematic. How, for example, is allowing the execution of arbitrary code in your browser not a major security flaw? Didn't we learn anything from Java applets and Flash? Usability is also a problem. JS heavy sites often break standard web expectations such as the back button. They are often overly complicated, favor design cleverness over usability, and don't work on mobile devices. Sure JS is great for web applications but is really needed for every single site? Whatever your view it is at least worth discussing whether or not the status quo is misguided.
mattgreenrocks 9y ago
Two reasons: * existential: questioning the zeitgeist is taboo, especially with the amount of momentum the web has * personal: it implicitly devalues the skills some are investing large amounts of time However, once a new platform emerges (and one will), devs will have to deal with both of these issues anyway, so they might as well start.
joshstrange 9y ago
I'm not threatened but no-js but I also am not going to maintain 2 code bases or thoroughly complicate things for such a small percentage of people. Yes if you have a news/blog site you should probably support noscript but for web apps I'm sorry, it's just not worth the time and effort.
- thinkxl 9y ago
  There are ways where you don't have to maintain 2 code bases. For example with react, when doing SSR, you can import your components from the client and use them in the server, allowing you to keep minimal functionality (links, text, images, etc.) when the JavaScript is off. There is one function on the server that you need to use to render any component you imported.

BaronSamedi 9y ago

As a rule, people tend to support the status quo--even when the status quo is problematic. I would argue that there are good reasons for thinking that the current widespread use of JS is problematic. How, for example, is allowing the execution of arbitrary code in your browser not a major security flaw? Didn't we learn anything from Java applets and Flash? Usability is also a problem. JS heavy sites often break standard web expectations such as the back button. They are often overly complicated, favor design cleverness over usability, and don't work on mobile devices. Sure JS is great for web applications but is really needed for every single site? Whatever your view it is at least worth discussing whether or not the status quo is misguided.

mattgreenrocks 9y ago

Two reasons: * existential: questioning the zeitgeist is taboo, especially with the amount of momentum the web has * personal: it implicitly devalues the skills some are investing large amounts of time However, once a new platform emerges (and one will), devs will have to deal with both of these issues anyway, so they might as well start.

joshstrange 9y ago

I'm not threatened but no-js but I also am not going to maintain 2 code bases or thoroughly complicate things for such a small percentage of people. Yes if you have a news/blog site you should probably support noscript but for web apps I'm sorry, it's just not worth the time and effort.

thinkxl 9y ago
There are ways where you don't have to maintain 2 code bases. For example with react, when doing SSR, you can import your components from the client and use them in the server, allowing you to keep minimal functionality (links, text, images, etc.) when the JavaScript is off. There is one function on the server that you need to use to render any component you imported.