4 ms·

> Essentially, users do not really benefit from the use of JavaScript, but websites do, and they do so mightily! Bullshit. Lots of features that are essential

> Essentially, users do not really benefit from the use of JavaScript, but websites do, and they do so mightily! Bullshit. Lots of features that are essential in people's everyday use case need Javascript in the web. > 4. Websites that Require JavaScript. When I encounter a website that absolutely requires JavaScript to function so conditioned are my reflexes that I find I've backed out and off it without me even having realizing it. I can wiz through dozens and dozens of news items on Hacker News and easily bypass any sites that will not function without JS. I've never needed to worry, as on the Web there's always thousands of equivalent or alternative websites that are more 'cooperative' from which to choose. Good for you for who's use is just for browsing in HN. As for most people there who use it for work and personal reasons, I am glad Javascript is there to provide features that are not possible without it. > 5. In very rare instances when I must visit a site that requires JavaScript to function, I've a browser add-on that has an icon on the navigation toolbar which allows me to simply toggle JS on and off whenever required. Accidentally leaving JS on is almost impossible as the icon changes from green to red when off. Similar methodologies apply on my rooted smartphone: along with the absolute prerequisite of completely removing (deleting) Google's GApps, the 3rd-party browser I use has a feature to turn JavaScript quickly off Guess what language that browser add-on you are using is written in. > In a much more user-centric web environment, none of us users would ever need this JavaScript 'junk'. In a user-centric environment, we put people needs first. So having a language that empowers developers to put features that are useful to the user is the primary focus. If you want to create JS less websites, you STILL can do so. I understand that Javascript has much to improve. But your hatred for it borders on the idealogical.

jancsika 8y ago
> Guess what language that browser add-on you are using is written in. While certainly curious, it is in no way hypocritical to use a hammer to smash a hammer factory.
zzzcpan 8y ago
> Lots of features that are essential in people's everyday use case need Javascript in the web. I also disable javascript by default. And yet none of the websites that I enable javascipt on have essential javascritpy features, but they merely don't present the content in plain html. > empowers developers to put features that are useful to the user is the primary focus No, there is and always was a tension between usability and developers putting up new features. If you truly focus on user experience you definitely can't empower developers to invent features, you have to constrain them and force them to follow UX guidelines.
- GhostVII 8y ago
  Do you never buy anything online? Or play an online game? Or use Google maps? I can think of lots of websites that I regularly use where JavaScript is important. I agree it is best to limit it, but it definitely has lots of uses.
  - dooglius 8y ago
    FWIW I generally take out my phone and use the Android Google Maps app, because it is considerably faster than waiting for the web version to load.
  - userbinator 8y ago
    With the exception of certain games, none of those other applications require JavaScript. Form submissions and such have been part of HTML for a long time, and map viewing most certainly doesn't need JS. See this comment from 3 years ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10872194 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10872194 Unfortunately the map images in the article there no longer work because Google has decided to "deprecate" that API, but there's absolutely nothing about serving what is essentially a large tiled image that requires the capability to run arbitrary code on the client. In fact, here's a tile URL I just found that still works: http://mt1.google.com/vt/lyrs=y&x=1325&y=3143&z=13 http://mt1.google.com/vt/lyrs=y&x=1325&y=3143&z=13 JavaScript is like Flash: useful or even essential for some things, but far too overused these days.
    - GhostVII 8y ago
      Sure, map viewing definitely doesn't need JavaScript, but Google Maps definitely does. I don't see how you could reasonably implement something like Google street view without JavaScript. Even just having the different locations on the map fade in and out of view as you zoom requires JavaScript, as far as I know. Personally, I don't want to have to use a stripped down version of maps, I want to be able to go into street view and see the locations, and smoothly see more detail as I zoom in. Perhaps a better example is video calling. Definitely can't do that without JavaScript. My point is that disabling JavaScript entirely eliminates several classes of websites. I think it is better to have reasonable limits to JavaScript than make these types of websites impossible.
anoncake 8y ago
> Guess what language that browser add-on you are using is written in. The issue is not that the code that websites make your browser execute is written in a bad language, but that websites make your browser execute code.
hilbert42 8y ago
I expected flak over aforementioned comment, especially so on Hacker News given that many of its readers earn their incomes from JavaScript. It's not JavaScript per se that's the main problem, rather it's the uses—the undeniable abuses—to which it has been put by many unscrupulous web players. Essentially, the abuse of users by developers and powerful websites is primarily channeled through this tool; any other equivalent mechanism would have received equal criticism from me. (Incidentally, I note you've not seen fit to address this aspect of my earlier comment nor the significant matter of JavaScript's propensity to highly degrade the speed of webpage rendering). > In a user-centric environment, we put people needs first. So having a language that empowers developers to put features that are useful to the user is the primary focus. If you want to create JS less websites, you STILL can do so. By using JavaScript do you honestly believe you are actually putting people first or is this just developer/website owner rhetoric? With few exceptions, what you are saying I consider mostly fanciful. We've seen sweeping statements such as 'put people needs first' and 'the user is the primary focus' before, for decades similar lines were peddled by Microsoft until they became such a joke that it wasn't game to push them any longer (I needn't remind you that this BS came from the company that arguably did even more damage to the Web than did JavaScript). The principle problem with JavaScript is that it has evolved into an extremely powerful tool—in fact it is now too powerful and consequentially the power it has unleashed is very lopsidedly in the hands of developers and website owners (as well as unscrupulous hackers); the only time ordinary users ever get a look-in is when programmers permit users to access web features of which the website strictly approves. Users essentially have no control over JavaScript's ability to invade their privacy etc. (without resorting third-party browser add-ons or turning off JavaScript altogether, and even that can be difficult these days, as some browsers have removed the switch that turns it off). JavaScript has always been developed with the at-developers'-convenience philosophy in mind, this has been true ever since the days of LiveScript. This design philosophy never changed with Microsoft later involvement except to make matters very much worse with is non-standard non-cooperative approach to everything in the IT world, its JScript and latter .NET being typical examples of the problem. Now we've WebAssembly/Wasm and essentially the same rules apply, W3C may think it runs the show but it's Google, Apples, Microsoft that effectively run the show. Had developers had users' ethics on their side, these problems could have been avoided early on. It would have been possible to separate JavaScript's multi-paradigm language/features into two separate languages. One language would only carry out essential glue-like functions (to use Andreessen's well know quip) to connect it with HTML so as to perform basic transactions with web servers etc. The other would carry out all those other nefarious tasks so reviled by people like me and users could block it at will without affecting the presentation of web pages. Naturally, nuking this script would be beneficial: trackers, etc. would be blocked and users would experience a substantial increase in speed as web pages would render much faster. (Right, I'm grossly oversimplifying these processes but I'm not discussing the intricacies of languages here). Have you actually taken the time to survey typical pages these days? I'll bet not, for how could you honestly justify or defend them as they are? It's only possible if you're on the receiving end of those cents. (I'll demonstrate later in a separate reply with some of my own stats.). > Bullshit. Lots of features that are essential in people's everyday use case need Javascript in the web. In the present Web climate I agree that one does need JavaScript, especially if one's the type of person who has minimal attention span and cannot live without dissolves, pop-ups, ads, moving images and every other kind of conceivable visual distraction. Of course knowledgeable users also need sufficient cognitive faculties to enable them to dismiss away all concerns and worries they may have about them being continually monitored and their privacy violated. Tragically, many millions of other ordinary Web users are still not aware of these issues, nor are they aware of the harmful consequences. That said, I fully accept there's a place for legitimate contextually-based animations, graphs and videos etc. to be displayed within web pages as well as the need for mechanisms to allow users to access payment systems etc. but strictly on the proviso that they are integral to the primary content of that page. Whilst these days JavaScript is often the main enabling technology that's used to deliver such content it doesn't necessarily have to be so as other ways still exist. In principle, I've no objection to using JavaScript in this context but I see no way of limiting its use to just this purpose. I am sorry that you've missed main thrust of my argument. What many website owners and developers simply do not realize or just blatantly ignore is how truly alienating it is for text-based junkies like me to be, say, well into reading the second paragraph of a story only to have a pop-up (or worse for an overlay) to suddenly appear with the aim of having me joining a mailing list or such. …And, as we already well know, that's just the beginning of the assault on us users when we visit websites. As far as I am concerned, such behavior is just not on. The reason why JavaScript is so on-the-nose is that it's the first-line weapon website and developers use in their assault on users' senses. As with anyone defending him or herself from attack, one's first aim is to neutralize the enemy's main weaponry; it thus makes common sense to nuke JavaScript whenever possible. As JavaScript has become so all pervasive, and with the rise of its even more insidious WebAssembly/Wasm derivative, it's easy to envision a not-too-distant Web where both have taken over—a Web where browsers will have access to very few or even no pages at all unless JavaScript is enabled. If this ever eventuates then I foresee a need for tailor-made JavaScript engines that would modify the way JavaScripts and Wasm work. 'Modified' JavaScript engines would have features that would allow their operational parameters to be reconfigured in quite powerful ways that would enable users to claw back control from websites, and they would do so in much more sophisticated ways than say NoScript or various ad blockers do now (in fact, these engines might even run their own user-defined add-ons).

jancsika 8y ago

> Guess what language that browser add-on you are using is written in. While certainly curious, it is in no way hypocritical to use a hammer to smash a hammer factory.

zzzcpan 8y ago

> Lots of features that are essential in people's everyday use case need Javascript in the web. I also disable javascript by default. And yet none of the websites that I enable javascipt on have essential javascritpy features, but they merely don't present the content in plain html. > empowers developers to put features that are useful to the user is the primary focus No, there is and always was a tension between usability and developers putting up new features. If you truly focus on user experience you definitely can't empower developers to invent features, you have to constrain them and force them to follow UX guidelines.

GhostVII 8y ago
Do you never buy anything online? Or play an online game? Or use Google maps? I can think of lots of websites that I regularly use where JavaScript is important. I agree it is best to limit it, but it definitely has lots of uses.
- dooglius 8y ago
  FWIW I generally take out my phone and use the Android Google Maps app, because it is considerably faster than waiting for the web version to load.
- userbinator 8y ago
  With the exception of certain games, none of those other applications require JavaScript. Form submissions and such have been part of HTML for a long time, and map viewing most certainly doesn't need JS. See this comment from 3 years ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10872194 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10872194 Unfortunately the map images in the article there no longer work because Google has decided to "deprecate" that API, but there's absolutely nothing about serving what is essentially a large tiled image that requires the capability to run arbitrary code on the client. In fact, here's a tile URL I just found that still works: http://mt1.google.com/vt/lyrs=y&x=1325&y=3143&z=13 http://mt1.google.com/vt/lyrs=y&x=1325&y=3143&z=13 JavaScript is like Flash: useful or even essential for some things, but far too overused these days.
  - GhostVII 8y ago
    Sure, map viewing definitely doesn't need JavaScript, but Google Maps definitely does. I don't see how you could reasonably implement something like Google street view without JavaScript. Even just having the different locations on the map fade in and out of view as you zoom requires JavaScript, as far as I know. Personally, I don't want to have to use a stripped down version of maps, I want to be able to go into street view and see the locations, and smoothly see more detail as I zoom in. Perhaps a better example is video calling. Definitely can't do that without JavaScript. My point is that disabling JavaScript entirely eliminates several classes of websites. I think it is better to have reasonable limits to JavaScript than make these types of websites impossible.

anoncake 8y ago

> Guess what language that browser add-on you are using is written in. The issue is not that the code that websites make your browser execute is written in a bad language, but that websites make your browser execute code.

hilbert42 8y ago

I expected flak over aforementioned comment, especially so on Hacker News given that many of its readers earn their incomes from JavaScript. It's not JavaScript per se that's the main problem, rather it's the uses—the undeniable abuses—to which it has been put by many unscrupulous web players. Essentially, the abuse of users by developers and powerful websites is primarily channeled through this tool; any other equivalent mechanism would have received equal criticism from me. (Incidentally, I note you've not seen fit to address this aspect of my earlier comment nor the significant matter of JavaScript's propensity to highly degrade the speed of webpage rendering). > In a user-centric environment, we put people needs first. So having a language that empowers developers to put features that are useful to the user is the primary focus. If you want to create JS less websites, you STILL can do so. By using JavaScript do you honestly believe you are actually putting people first or is this just developer/website owner rhetoric? With few exceptions, what you are saying I consider mostly fanciful. We've seen sweeping statements such as 'put people needs first' and 'the user is the primary focus' before, for decades similar lines were peddled by Microsoft until they became such a joke that it wasn't game to push them any longer (I needn't remind you that this BS came from the company that arguably did even more damage to the Web than did JavaScript). The principle problem with JavaScript is that it has evolved into an extremely powerful tool—in fact it is now too powerful and consequentially the power it has unleashed is very lopsidedly in the hands of developers and website owners (as well as unscrupulous hackers); the only time ordinary users ever get a look-in is when programmers permit users to access web features of which the website strictly approves. Users essentially have no control over JavaScript's ability to invade their privacy etc. (without resorting third-party browser add-ons or turning off JavaScript altogether, and even that can be difficult these days, as some browsers have removed the switch that turns it off). JavaScript has always been developed with the at-developers'-convenience philosophy in mind, this has been true ever since the days of LiveScript. This design philosophy never changed with Microsoft later involvement except to make matters very much worse with is non-standard non-cooperative approach to everything in the IT world, its JScript and latter .NET being typical examples of the problem. Now we've WebAssembly/Wasm and essentially the same rules apply, W3C may think it runs the show but it's Google, Apples, Microsoft that effectively run the show. Had developers had users' ethics on their side, these problems could have been avoided early on. It would have been possible to separate JavaScript's multi-paradigm language/features into two separate languages. One language would only carry out essential glue-like functions (to use Andreessen's well know quip) to connect it with HTML so as to perform basic transactions with web servers etc. The other would carry out all those other nefarious tasks so reviled by people like me and users could block it at will without affecting the presentation of web pages. Naturally, nuking this script would be beneficial: trackers, etc. would be blocked and users would experience a substantial increase in speed as web pages would render much faster. (Right, I'm grossly oversimplifying these processes but I'm not discussing the intricacies of languages here). Have you actually taken the time to survey typical pages these days? I'll bet not, for how could you honestly justify or defend them as they are? It's only possible if you're on the receiving end of those cents. (I'll demonstrate later in a separate reply with some of my own stats.). > Bullshit. Lots of features that are essential in people's everyday use case need Javascript in the web. In the present Web climate I agree that one does need JavaScript, especially if one's the type of person who has minimal attention span and cannot live without dissolves, pop-ups, ads, moving images and every other kind of conceivable visual distraction. Of course knowledgeable users also need sufficient cognitive faculties to enable them to dismiss away all concerns and worries they may have about them being continually monitored and their privacy violated. Tragically, many millions of other ordinary Web users are still not aware of these issues, nor are they aware of the harmful consequences. That said, I fully accept there's a place for legitimate contextually-based animations, graphs and videos etc. to be displayed within web pages as well as the need for mechanisms to allow users to access payment systems etc. but strictly on the proviso that they are integral to the primary content of that page. Whilst these days JavaScript is often the main enabling technology that's used to deliver such content it doesn't necessarily have to be so as other ways still exist. In principle, I've no objection to using JavaScript in this context but I see no way of limiting its use to just this purpose. I am sorry that you've missed main thrust of my argument. What many website owners and developers simply do not realize or just blatantly ignore is how truly alienating it is for text-based junkies like me to be, say, well into reading the second paragraph of a story only to have a pop-up (or worse for an overlay) to suddenly appear with the aim of having me joining a mailing list or such. …And, as we already well know, that's just the beginning of the assault on us users when we visit websites. As far as I am concerned, such behavior is just not on. The reason why JavaScript is so on-the-nose is that it's the first-line weapon website and developers use in their assault on users' senses. As with anyone defending him or herself from attack, one's first aim is to neutralize the enemy's main weaponry; it thus makes common sense to nuke JavaScript whenever possible. As JavaScript has become so all pervasive, and with the rise of its even more insidious WebAssembly/Wasm derivative, it's easy to envision a not-too-distant Web where both have taken over—a Web where browsers will have access to very few or even no pages at all unless JavaScript is enabled. If this ever eventuates then I foresee a need for tailor-made JavaScript engines that would modify the way JavaScripts and Wasm work. 'Modified' JavaScript engines would have features that would allow their operational parameters to be reconfigured in quite powerful ways that would enable users to claw back control from websites, and they would do so in much more sophisticated ways than say NoScript or various ad blockers do now (in fact, these engines might even run their own user-defined add-ons).