3 ms·
Mozilla is partly to blame here by taking away the "Disable Javascript" control, which effectively told websites they could go crazy with JS and ignore the "no-
by dreamcompiler 9y ago
Mozilla is partly to blame here by taking away the "Disable Javascript" control, which effectively told websites they could go crazy with JS and ignore the "no-JS" users.
What might be helpful now is something like a MAX-JS-BYTES=n header that tells site owners that the useragent will ignore any JS beyond the first n bytes on the page, and will not request more once that limit is reached. (I know this is a terrible idea; hard byte limits could never work. But somehow site owners need to be made to feel more immediate pain when they screw their customers with too much JS bloat because they've hired lazy developers, or because their idiot VP of marketing is all about TEH BLING.)
- bobwaycott 9y ago> What might be helpful now is something like a MAX-JS-BYTES=n header that tells site owners that the useragent will ignore any JS beyond the first n bytes on the page, and will not request more once that limit is reached. I love this idea. Web development seriously needs some discipline. Myself included.
- smitherfield 9y ago>Mozilla is partly to blame here by taking away the "Disable Javascript" control, which effectively told websites they could go crazy with JS and ignore the "no-JS" users. One might say, for other reasons, that Mozilla is 100% to blame for all of it.
- b0rsuk 9y agoUh oh, but that would mean frontend developers have to reason about their resource usage, and have a vague idea how many programs they are even using! Javascript usage is simply out of control, things load themselves automagically, asynchronously, unpredictably.