5 ms·

> What about web apps? I think it's important to make this distinction. A lot of websites don't need the JavaScript they ship with to present the material the

> What about web apps? I think it's important to make this distinction. A lot of websites don't need the JavaScript they ship with to present the material the users want. I agree those websites should work without JavaScript. However, you can't expect actual web applications to do this. Examples - https://www.draw.io/ https://www.draw.io/ - https://www.audiotool.com/app/ https://www.audiotool.com/app/ (sign in required; demo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvIu_R8bmdA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvIu_R8bmdA) - https://human.biodigital.com/signin.html https://human.biodigital.com/signin.html (sign in required; demo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dW4JSMlBhWQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dW4JSMlBhWQ) - https://pixlr.com/x/ https://pixlr.com/x/ Other more commonly know examples - Most of Google Drive offerings - Google Analytics control panel - Twitch I see this confusion a lot when this topic is discussed on HackerNews.

irq11 8y ago
Webapps can be implemented just fine without Javascript; I’ve been doing it for years. React is a luxury, not a requirement, and progressive enhancement is a thing in all but the most demanding apps. The point is, I currently exist in a world where I randomly shut off all javascript on websites, and it’s a happy world. Personally, I’d be tickled pink if it was a built-in browser feature (and if it forced web devs to be more responsible? Bonus!)
- davidjgraph 8y ago
  Curious how to implement https://github.com/jgraph/drawio https://github.com/jgraph/drawio without JS?
- plorntus 8y ago
  No, not in every case can they be built without JavaScript. That's an insane statement to make. Example: Build a usable decent image editor that allows you to preview your changes without the page refreshing or redownload an entirely new image (therefore using even more data). Example 2: Make a playable 3D game Example 3: Make a spreadsheet web app The list goes on. Some things can of course be done without JavaScript but tons of ideas would not only be infeasible to develop, they'd be a usability nightmare.
  - ForHackernews 8y ago
    Why do you want any of those things to run inside a browser? Those all sound like great candidates for being actual installed software. Do we even remember how to write that? This everything-is-a-website mentality is a disaster for privacy, security, and the future of decentralized general-purpose computing.
    - coding123 8y ago
      Both Java and C# tried to break the web (silverlight and Java FX) and both ended up being considerable failures. We still don't have a reasonably easy way to write cross-platform applications (Mac/Win/Lin/Phone) in a native-first language. The reason JS has taken off is because it filled a rather HUGE hole. If there is a chance that is changing, let us know, but right now, the hole isn't being filled with anything else.
      - perrylaj 8y ago
        JavaFX is a GUI toolkit. It does allow the use of CSS for design, but is nothing like silver light, flash, etc. It's not mean to run in a browser at all. You probably meant Java applets?
    - crooked-v 8y ago
      > Why do you want any of those things to run inside a browser? Those all sound like great candidates for being actual installed software. The point is to remove the need to install things. > security An image editor that runs entirely in the browser and only has sandboxed access to open and save dialogs is more secure by miles than running a random .msi installer.
    - plorntus 8y ago
      Many reasons why: - Convenience of just going to a site and not installing anything. - Cross platform, if you have a browser most web apps will work. - Being relatively certain that by just visiting a web app you're not going to end up with malware or other unwanted software - Being able to access your app from other locations without admin access. - Updates are ready and available instantly There are of course many many more benefits. I get that not everything has to be a web app but it's disingenuous to imply that they have no use cases.
- qudat 8y ago
  > I’ve been doing it for years. Who is asking you do to this? I have not had a single request -- ever -- in 15 years of web development. Hey more power to you if you want to disable JS, but the world will be leaving you behind.
  - zzzcpan 8y ago
    Things that work without JS are typically much faster, more responsive and more consistent in terms of user experience. A competitive advantage over what young frontend developers produce these days.
  - dijit 8y ago
    I’m one of the people requesting this kind of thing. Just because your helpdesk or sales is not forwarding my requests to you doesn’t mean I haven’t made them. I also ask my ISP to support ipv6, but I imagine the same thing happens there. Engineers never get the memo because it’s deemed unimportant by people who make decisions.
- yuchi 8y ago
  1) The applications you develop/design (I infer) have a very limited kind of interaction, or have no need to support offline conditions and/or real-time data. This is not the case for the rest of the world. 2) what you propose is completely different from the proposal in the link. I’d be ok with a JS-off-by-default world (or a cookie-off-by-default too!!) but having a limit on file size is just… miopic.
  - irq11 8y ago
    You’re right on the second point: I think it’s somewhat silly to set an arbitrary size limit (an easy javascript off button would be fantastic, however.) Your first point misses the argument. It’s not that you should support everything with JS disabled; you should, however, support a subset of your interaction as a fallback. Yeah, users don’t get offline mode or whizzy ajax updates, but you can absolutely find a way to work, in nearly all apps. And it isn’t that hard. The fact that so many people believe this is impossible is an indication of how low the front-end development bar has fallen. This is why we have webpages that take 10MB of JS to render 300k of text.

irq11 8y ago

Webapps can be implemented just fine without Javascript; I’ve been doing it for years. React is a luxury, not a requirement, and progressive enhancement is a thing in all but the most demanding apps. The point is, I currently exist in a world where I randomly shut off all javascript on websites, and it’s a happy world. Personally, I’d be tickled pink if it was a built-in browser feature (and if it forced web devs to be more responsible? Bonus!)

davidjgraph 8y ago
Curious how to implement https://github.com/jgraph/drawio https://github.com/jgraph/drawio without JS?
plorntus 8y ago
No, not in every case can they be built without JavaScript. That's an insane statement to make. Example: Build a usable decent image editor that allows you to preview your changes without the page refreshing or redownload an entirely new image (therefore using even more data). Example 2: Make a playable 3D game Example 3: Make a spreadsheet web app The list goes on. Some things can of course be done without JavaScript but tons of ideas would not only be infeasible to develop, they'd be a usability nightmare.
- ForHackernews 8y ago
  Why do you want any of those things to run inside a browser? Those all sound like great candidates for being actual installed software. Do we even remember how to write that? This everything-is-a-website mentality is a disaster for privacy, security, and the future of decentralized general-purpose computing.
  - coding123 8y ago
    Both Java and C# tried to break the web (silverlight and Java FX) and both ended up being considerable failures. We still don't have a reasonably easy way to write cross-platform applications (Mac/Win/Lin/Phone) in a native-first language. The reason JS has taken off is because it filled a rather HUGE hole. If there is a chance that is changing, let us know, but right now, the hole isn't being filled with anything else.
    - perrylaj 8y ago
      JavaFX is a GUI toolkit. It does allow the use of CSS for design, but is nothing like silver light, flash, etc. It's not mean to run in a browser at all. You probably meant Java applets?
  - crooked-v 8y ago
    > Why do you want any of those things to run inside a browser? Those all sound like great candidates for being actual installed software. The point is to remove the need to install things. > security An image editor that runs entirely in the browser and only has sandboxed access to open and save dialogs is more secure by miles than running a random .msi installer.
  - plorntus 8y ago
    Many reasons why: - Convenience of just going to a site and not installing anything. - Cross platform, if you have a browser most web apps will work. - Being relatively certain that by just visiting a web app you're not going to end up with malware or other unwanted software - Being able to access your app from other locations without admin access. - Updates are ready and available instantly There are of course many many more benefits. I get that not everything has to be a web app but it's disingenuous to imply that they have no use cases.
qudat 8y ago
> I’ve been doing it for years. Who is asking you do to this? I have not had a single request -- ever -- in 15 years of web development. Hey more power to you if you want to disable JS, but the world will be leaving you behind.
- zzzcpan 8y ago
  Things that work without JS are typically much faster, more responsive and more consistent in terms of user experience. A competitive advantage over what young frontend developers produce these days.
- dijit 8y ago
  I’m one of the people requesting this kind of thing. Just because your helpdesk or sales is not forwarding my requests to you doesn’t mean I haven’t made them. I also ask my ISP to support ipv6, but I imagine the same thing happens there. Engineers never get the memo because it’s deemed unimportant by people who make decisions.
yuchi 8y ago
1) The applications you develop/design (I infer) have a very limited kind of interaction, or have no need to support offline conditions and/or real-time data. This is not the case for the rest of the world. 2) what you propose is completely different from the proposal in the link. I’d be ok with a JS-off-by-default world (or a cookie-off-by-default too!!) but having a limit on file size is just… miopic.
- irq11 8y ago
  You’re right on the second point: I think it’s somewhat silly to set an arbitrary size limit (an easy javascript off button would be fantastic, however.) Your first point misses the argument. It’s not that you should support everything with JS disabled; you should, however, support a subset of your interaction as a fallback. Yeah, users don’t get offline mode or whizzy ajax updates, but you can absolutely find a way to work, in nearly all apps. And it isn’t that hard. The fact that so many people believe this is impossible is an indication of how low the front-end development bar has fallen. This is why we have webpages that take 10MB of JS to render 300k of text.