4 ms·

Is it seriously that big a deal that a website uses Javascript?

seba_dos1 8y ago
It doesn't just "use JavaScript", it's entirely implemented in JS. Without JS, you just have an empty site with no markup.
- metamet 8y ago
  Good thing all of my browsers support JavaScript. :)
  - superkuh 8y ago
    Translating this kind of thinking back to the 90s it'd be something like, "I run random executables I get emailed." As all those browsers expose more and more hardware directly the security evaporates. It's already bad.
    - thosakwe 8y ago
      There’s a lot of Javascript on the Internet. If you disable it in your browser, there’s going to be some content you can’t use. It’s a trade off. Not every website has no-JS users designed in mind. I’m not defending the lack of accessibility. It’s just a reality at this point.
      - crooked-v 8y ago
        Isomorphic server side rendering gets you the best of both worlds and isn't hard to set up these days as long as you have it in mind from the start.
      - seba_dos1 8y ago
        Of course. Not every application running in a browser is a website just because it runs in the browser. However, here we're talking about a very websitish website, with its websiteness even being the central point of its websitey existence... and yet it doesn't work as a website ;)
      - dictum 8y ago
        > I’m not defending the lack of accessibility. It’s just a reality at this point. Some unrequested advice on ethics: I really understand your pragmatism, but in defending the way things are at this point, you are indirectly defending the consequences, even if you don't directly support these consequences. This sounds weirdly stern (we're talking about web development, not, say, the Middle East) but I think this applies to everything we do. When you choose to use a tool or a technique because everyone else is doing it, you are endorsing the status quo and its harmful or positive side effects, to some degree. Defending the way things are right now isn't wrong by itself, but it is not a neutral action.
      - superkuh 8y ago
        It is reality for businesses and large institutions. I can accept that they don't care about anything other than making (or saving) money which drives their managers to drive their coders to make shitty sites that encourage unsafe practices. But when those same coders come home and defend the practice just because they have to do it for work I'm a bit confused. It shouldn't be controversial that this is a bad thing. I'd guess it's sunk costs type thinking.
    - SquareWheel 8y ago
      Javascript is sandboxed. Running "random executables" is definitely not.
      - superkuh 8y ago
        Keep telling yourself that as more and more hardware and low level networking functionality is directly exposed due to the demands for 'apps' that can equal the abilities of native applications.
        SquareWheel 8y ago
        The browser security model is actually granular, as opposed to the desktop model of granting complete access upon running an app. Sensitive information like location or hardware access sits behind contextual permission prompts.

It doesn't just "use JavaScript", it's entirely implemented in JS. Without JS, you just have an empty site with no markup.

metamet 8y ago
Good thing all of my browsers support JavaScript. :)
- superkuh 8y ago
  Translating this kind of thinking back to the 90s it'd be something like, "I run random executables I get emailed." As all those browsers expose more and more hardware directly the security evaporates. It's already bad.
  - thosakwe 8y ago
    There’s a lot of Javascript on the Internet. If you disable it in your browser, there’s going to be some content you can’t use. It’s a trade off. Not every website has no-JS users designed in mind. I’m not defending the lack of accessibility. It’s just a reality at this point.
    - crooked-v 8y ago
      Isomorphic server side rendering gets you the best of both worlds and isn't hard to set up these days as long as you have it in mind from the start.
    - seba_dos1 8y ago
      Of course. Not every application running in a browser is a website just because it runs in the browser. However, here we're talking about a very websitish website, with its websiteness even being the central point of its websitey existence... and yet it doesn't work as a website ;)
    - dictum 8y ago
      > I’m not defending the lack of accessibility. It’s just a reality at this point. Some unrequested advice on ethics: I really understand your pragmatism, but in defending the way things are at this point, you are indirectly defending the consequences, even if you don't directly support these consequences. This sounds weirdly stern (we're talking about web development, not, say, the Middle East) but I think this applies to everything we do. When you choose to use a tool or a technique because everyone else is doing it, you are endorsing the status quo and its harmful or positive side effects, to some degree. Defending the way things are right now isn't wrong by itself, but it is not a neutral action.
    - superkuh 8y ago
      It is reality for businesses and large institutions. I can accept that they don't care about anything other than making (or saving) money which drives their managers to drive their coders to make shitty sites that encourage unsafe practices. But when those same coders come home and defend the practice just because they have to do it for work I'm a bit confused. It shouldn't be controversial that this is a bad thing. I'd guess it's sunk costs type thinking.
  - SquareWheel 8y ago
    Javascript is sandboxed. Running "random executables" is definitely not.
    - superkuh 8y ago
      Keep telling yourself that as more and more hardware and low level networking functionality is directly exposed due to the demands for 'apps' that can equal the abilities of native applications.
      - SquareWheel 8y ago
        The browser security model is actually granular, as opposed to the desktop model of granting complete access upon running an app. Sensitive information like location or hardware access sits behind contextual permission prompts.