5 ms·

> First of all it's too loaded and it doesn't seem to work at all without Javascript enabled. Give me a text field, I don't care about the news. I genuinely do

by myf01d 9y ago

> First of all it's too loaded and it doesn't seem to work at all without Javascript enabled. Give me a text field, I don't care about the news. I genuinely don't understand this hostile statement. Why do you complain that a website isn't functional in pure html in 2017? do you want the web to look like it's 1998?

mrweasel 9y ago
Why is it a problem to have page functional without Javascript? It's the number one tools for spying on users, so especially if you're a privacy focused search engine, you should except people to have Javascript disabled, until they choose to trust you. There's no real need to javascript on search engines or news sites. There might be some additional features, like polls that will require Javascript, but the base functionality should work. I'm still a firm believer in progressive enhancement, even if it's no longer trendy. Modern Javascript framework however seems to be firmly in the "Javascript or die" camp.
Annatar 9y ago
Because a search engine must run on the widest array of web browsers possible. For being a European search engine and based in France to boot, they should very well be aware of platforms which have minimal or no JavaScript support in their web browsers, like for example the classic AmigaOS. If someone with a platform like that tries to use their search engine to perhaps find a JavaScript enabled client, they couldn’t. Lots of TV sets nowadays have built-in web browsers with no or incomplete JavaScript support, as another example. However the worst offense is that JavaScript is utterly unnecessary in a web search application, so that would be introducing an artificial dependency, one of the worst crimes in software development. Software should be designed with minimal dependencies it needs to do the job and the extras should be the users’ choice. Developers who made this choice for users historically lost their user base as soon as a competing application which had less dependencies showed up; there is a lesson to be learned from that.
- m_t 9y ago
  > For being a European search engine and based in France to boot, they should very well be aware of platforms which have minimal or no JavaScript support in their web browsers, I don't understand this statement. Is there less js-enabled browser in Europe, or in France?
  - Annatar 9y ago
    Commodore Amiga and ATARI ST were big in France (and still are, if the demoscene contributions are anything to go by); In Europe, Amiga is still a thing. ATARI ST is still a thing. Neither of those have complete JavaScript support, if any. That’s where “the French connection” comes from in this context.
dijit 9y ago
You are conflating two different things. It is indeed completely possible to have nice looking websites without javascript. Heavy use of javascript is often a huge waste of resources anyway. The question is only; how much is too much. And considering your competition is Google, that answer is: not a lot.
kire456 9y ago
Not parent, but Javascript enables a lot of nasty business and often slows pages down on my not-so-fast work PC, so I disable it. If a website has a good reason to need it (e.g. apps like Google Docs), it gets whitelisted. Typically, one doesn't need a script for displaying text and filling forms. Let's reverse the question: the task "map this text input to a list of links" could be done in 1998 with no scripts, why is it dependent on JS in 2017?
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
s17n 9y ago
> I genuinely don't understand this hostile statement. Why do you complain that a website isn't functional in pure html in 2017? Because sites that rely on javascript typically have terrible performance and broken UI, and add insult to injury by not doing anything that actually needed javascript in the first place.

by myf01d 9y ago

mrweasel 9y ago

Why is it a problem to have page functional without Javascript? It's the number one tools for spying on users, so especially if you're a privacy focused search engine, you should except people to have Javascript disabled, until they choose to trust you. There's no real need to javascript on search engines or news sites. There might be some additional features, like polls that will require Javascript, but the base functionality should work. I'm still a firm believer in progressive enhancement, even if it's no longer trendy. Modern Javascript framework however seems to be firmly in the "Javascript or die" camp.

Annatar 9y ago

Because a search engine must run on the widest array of web browsers possible. For being a European search engine and based in France to boot, they should very well be aware of platforms which have minimal or no JavaScript support in their web browsers, like for example the classic AmigaOS. If someone with a platform like that tries to use their search engine to perhaps find a JavaScript enabled client, they couldn’t. Lots of TV sets nowadays have built-in web browsers with no or incomplete JavaScript support, as another example. However the worst offense is that JavaScript is utterly unnecessary in a web search application, so that would be introducing an artificial dependency, one of the worst crimes in software development. Software should be designed with minimal dependencies it needs to do the job and the extras should be the users’ choice. Developers who made this choice for users historically lost their user base as soon as a competing application which had less dependencies showed up; there is a lesson to be learned from that.

m_t 9y ago
> For being a European search engine and based in France to boot, they should very well be aware of platforms which have minimal or no JavaScript support in their web browsers, I don't understand this statement. Is there less js-enabled browser in Europe, or in France?
- Annatar 9y ago
  Commodore Amiga and ATARI ST were big in France (and still are, if the demoscene contributions are anything to go by); In Europe, Amiga is still a thing. ATARI ST is still a thing. Neither of those have complete JavaScript support, if any. That’s where “the French connection” comes from in this context.

dijit 9y ago

You are conflating two different things. It is indeed completely possible to have nice looking websites without javascript. Heavy use of javascript is often a huge waste of resources anyway. The question is only; how much is too much. And considering your competition is Google, that answer is: not a lot.

kire456 9y ago

Not parent, but Javascript enables a lot of nasty business and often slows pages down on my not-so-fast work PC, so I disable it. If a website has a good reason to need it (e.g. apps like Google Docs), it gets whitelisted. Typically, one doesn't need a script for displaying text and filling forms. Let's reverse the question: the task "map this text input to a list of links" could be done in 1998 with no scripts, why is it dependent on JS in 2017?

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

s17n 9y ago

> I genuinely don't understand this hostile statement. Why do you complain that a website isn't functional in pure html in 2017? Because sites that rely on javascript typically have terrible performance and broken UI, and add insult to injury by not doing anything that actually needed javascript in the first place.