OK, so a bit of hyperbole grabs attention. 1. I've two professions: IT and engineering; putting my engineering cap on, if I'd designed a system that was so ho

OK, so a bit of hyperbole grabs attention. 1. I've two professions: IT and engineering; putting my engineering cap on, if I'd designed a system that was so horrible, slipshod and malevolent as JavaScript, then very likely I'd be up on negligence charges (someone could be hurt or killed). W. Wayt Gibbs said in Scientific American in an article titled 'Software's Chronic Crisis' about a quarter century* ago "Despite 50 years of progress, the software industry remains years-perhaps decades-short of the mature engineering discipline needed to meet the demands of an information-age society." Essentially, he went on to equate the then current state of the software 'art' [art emphasized] in so-called software engineering with the profession of chemistry circa 1800 (on the evidence, he's one of many who hold this view). I'm not directly pointing at you, but the JavaScript problem is the elephant in the room that most don't want to see. Defending the indefensible is not a particularly bright course of action. The IT industry has had a quarter century to fix the problem properly but it's failed to do so—even with WebRTC, we've, at best, only a Rube Goldberg/Heath Robinson—level solution. I'd suggest software's march towards professionalism in that quarter century is nigh on non-existent. For example, look what compilation [obfuscation] did for the industry: it hid the faults, bugs, multiplied security risks many fold; gave us horrible buggy bloatware like Windows not to mention corruption (Volkswagen, etc.). [I'm mighty glad I have my fallback profession.] 2. What I said and what I outlined above is a prescriptive solution that works well for many people (my hyperbole notwithstanding). Basically, unless you have to live on JavaScript-ridden sites continually such as social media ones, then the solution not only works well but also there's measurable/quantitative benefits. In other words, do the math and I'll be proved correct. (Of course, I'm only referring to the user side, owners of web sites are the losers; but then Facebook, Google, et al are already making obscene profits, the likes of which we've never previously seen the equal.) * SciAm, September 1994; Page 86.