5 ms·

A ban of everything JS except for these so-called web apps, which obviously need it. Make the internet great (performant/efficient/secure) again!

swiley 9y ago
Really what browsers need are profiles. Maybe a research profile that just supports submitting search forms and renders everything in the same colors and the same fonts and the same margins, and an app profile which lets pages do all the ridiculous JS crap.
- linopolus 9y ago
  And websites supporting this. I recently came across some site providing a paper that wouldn't even load the raw text without JS.
netcraft 9y ago
Forgive me, but I just don't understand this sentiment at all. I understand your general frustration with over-engineered websites - but is it not your choice to visit that website? Do you not also have the ability to block javascript just like the scourge of flash websites before it? We aren't talking about vulnerabilities here though, youre just saying that there are websites out there that could do with less (or no) javascript but arent, so you want to "force" them to? Let me ask it a different way - do you have any reasonable expectation that your proposal will ever be accepted? That browser manufacturers will implement things to limit or block the functionality of js? Where would the line be drawn (and who would draw it) between the so-called web apps and everything else that isn't worthy? There already are some mechanisms in place to decentivize misbehaving websites such as the google rankings. But thats a far cry from a browser not supporting or displaying some warning when viewing one of those sites. Maybe im missing something - that there are these required sites that are misbehaving and we need some regulatory power to rein them in.
- dmitrygr 9y ago
  Maybe im missing something You definitely are. Disable js and try browsing. Note the quadrupled battery life in your laptop.
  - netcraft 9y ago
    I don't doubt improved battery life (although quadrupled seems like a stretch) - but I bet if you turned off images and video you'd have a similar improvement - but nobody is saying that pictures are ruining the web. Again, arent you capable of choosing the websites you use? Are there websites you are required to spend extended amounts of time with that you want the browsers to step in and force them to use less javascript?
    - dmitrygr 9y ago
      images decode once and usually in hardware. js runs in background, forever.
- wwwhatcrack 9y ago
  Let me guess, you write angular apps backed by node?
- na85 9y ago
  >Let me ask it a different way - do you have any reasonable expectation that your proposal will ever be accepted? There are hundreds of pie in the sky suggestions being floated here, and the one about javascript is the one you choose to attack with this argument? JavaScript has unequivocally made the web worse for everyone but advertisers and perhaps the people that run CDNs. Why, of all the proposals here, are you trying to shit on this one on particular? Honest question.
  - netcraft 9y ago
    > JavaScript has unequivocally made the web worse for everyone but advertisers and perhaps the people that run CDNs. Do you really think this is defensible? That the web would be as popular or useful as it is today without the ability to run code in the browser? I'm curious if you think there is a majority of people that agree with this? > Why, of all the proposals here, are you trying to shit on this one on particular? I am not shitting on anyone - im trying to have an honest discussion about why you and the OP feel that javascript is such a scourge that it needs to be regulated. Not one person has addressed even one of my questions, you included. I'm sorry you're taking my challenge as hostility - its not intended that way. I submit that its possible I am missing something - perhaps there is situations out there that I don't have to deal with. I'm asking for an honest view point that I can try to understand. > ... pie in the sky ... Theres a difference between "here's something thats easily accepted is a good idea but might be difficult to implement" and this. I'm asking for an explanation of the premise itself.

swiley 9y ago

Really what browsers need are profiles. Maybe a research profile that just supports submitting search forms and renders everything in the same colors and the same fonts and the same margins, and an app profile which lets pages do all the ridiculous JS crap.

linopolus 9y ago
And websites supporting this. I recently came across some site providing a paper that wouldn't even load the raw text without JS.

netcraft 9y ago

Forgive me, but I just don't understand this sentiment at all. I understand your general frustration with over-engineered websites - but is it not your choice to visit that website? Do you not also have the ability to block javascript just like the scourge of flash websites before it? We aren't talking about vulnerabilities here though, youre just saying that there are websites out there that could do with less (or no) javascript but arent, so you want to "force" them to? Let me ask it a different way - do you have any reasonable expectation that your proposal will ever be accepted? That browser manufacturers will implement things to limit or block the functionality of js? Where would the line be drawn (and who would draw it) between the so-called web apps and everything else that isn't worthy? There already are some mechanisms in place to decentivize misbehaving websites such as the google rankings. But thats a far cry from a browser not supporting or displaying some warning when viewing one of those sites. Maybe im missing something - that there are these required sites that are misbehaving and we need some regulatory power to rein them in.

dmitrygr 9y ago
Maybe im missing something You definitely are. Disable js and try browsing. Note the quadrupled battery life in your laptop.
- netcraft 9y ago
  I don't doubt improved battery life (although quadrupled seems like a stretch) - but I bet if you turned off images and video you'd have a similar improvement - but nobody is saying that pictures are ruining the web. Again, arent you capable of choosing the websites you use? Are there websites you are required to spend extended amounts of time with that you want the browsers to step in and force them to use less javascript?
  - dmitrygr 9y ago
    images decode once and usually in hardware. js runs in background, forever.
wwwhatcrack 9y ago
Let me guess, you write angular apps backed by node?
na85 9y ago
>Let me ask it a different way - do you have any reasonable expectation that your proposal will ever be accepted? There are hundreds of pie in the sky suggestions being floated here, and the one about javascript is the one you choose to attack with this argument? JavaScript has unequivocally made the web worse for everyone but advertisers and perhaps the people that run CDNs. Why, of all the proposals here, are you trying to shit on this one on particular? Honest question.
- netcraft 9y ago
  > JavaScript has unequivocally made the web worse for everyone but advertisers and perhaps the people that run CDNs. Do you really think this is defensible? That the web would be as popular or useful as it is today without the ability to run code in the browser? I'm curious if you think there is a majority of people that agree with this? > Why, of all the proposals here, are you trying to shit on this one on particular? I am not shitting on anyone - im trying to have an honest discussion about why you and the OP feel that javascript is such a scourge that it needs to be regulated. Not one person has addressed even one of my questions, you included. I'm sorry you're taking my challenge as hostility - its not intended that way. I submit that its possible I am missing something - perhaps there is situations out there that I don't have to deal with. I'm asking for an honest view point that I can try to understand. > ... pie in the sky ... Theres a difference between "here's something thats easily accepted is a good idea but might be difficult to implement" and this. I'm asking for an explanation of the premise itself.