4 ms·

This is a requirement that most sites can simply dismiss these days. The distinction between an app and a website is blurry, a lot of interaction simply works f

This is a requirement that most sites can simply dismiss these days. The distinction between an app and a website is blurry, a lot of interaction simply works far better with Javascript. Supporting "no Javascript" can be costly. It's possible with server-side React and careful engineering, but why bother? What's the impact on the business?

treerunner 8y ago
Bother for human rights. "Javascript" is costly too - but maybe not your concern since it's not a business cost.
- zeroname 8y ago
  > Bother for human rights. Which human right, specifically? Humans have the "right" to install a modern browser and enable Javascript. > "Javascript" is costly too - but maybe not your concern since it's not a business cost. Indeed, the cost you pay to run Javascript does not show up in my budget, just like I don't pay your ISP to serve my site to you.
lousken 8y ago
I don't know what the real impact is, but if your site shows me blank page without javascript(I have it off by default) I am closing the tab. I don't think supporting noscript version is costly because for me that's how it supposed to be by default. 90% sites that are currently on the internet would work just fine without any js and 95% would work with as little as hackernews has. Modern CSS allows to create most of the experiences and unless you need some interactive forms or serving live broadcasts, games etc., there's just no point in using javascript. Over the years I've stripped javascript from about 40sites which I visit daily without sacrificing any real functionality. Those sites download and render visibly faster, only relevant cotent is shown and I even implemented dark theme for them. My only javascript fixes are for broken galleries or embedded videos (and those wouldn't even be necessary if developers wrote a fallback to noscript). It used to be that developers loaded many little scripts so I could only block the useless crap but since everything is minifed and bundled in one huge unreadable file, I just use uMatrix to block it entirely and Stylus and Tampermonkey to fix it.
- zeroname 8y ago
  > I don't know what the real impact is, but if your site shows me blank page without javascript(I have it off by default) I am closing the tab. I can show you "this site requires Javascript" instead, but let's just say you're not part of the target audience and that's fine. > I don't think supporting noscript version is costly because for me that's how it supposed to be by default. That highly depends on the site, of course. > 90% sites that are currently on the internet would work just fine without any js and 95% would work with as little as hackernews has. 99.9% of websites are not actually businesses that employ developers. If that's your standard, I agree. A simple webpage does not require Javascript.

treerunner 8y ago

Bother for human rights. "Javascript" is costly too - but maybe not your concern since it's not a business cost.

zeroname 8y ago
> Bother for human rights. Which human right, specifically? Humans have the "right" to install a modern browser and enable Javascript. > "Javascript" is costly too - but maybe not your concern since it's not a business cost. Indeed, the cost you pay to run Javascript does not show up in my budget, just like I don't pay your ISP to serve my site to you.

lousken 8y ago

I don't know what the real impact is, but if your site shows me blank page without javascript(I have it off by default) I am closing the tab. I don't think supporting noscript version is costly because for me that's how it supposed to be by default. 90% sites that are currently on the internet would work just fine without any js and 95% would work with as little as hackernews has. Modern CSS allows to create most of the experiences and unless you need some interactive forms or serving live broadcasts, games etc., there's just no point in using javascript. Over the years I've stripped javascript from about 40sites which I visit daily without sacrificing any real functionality. Those sites download and render visibly faster, only relevant cotent is shown and I even implemented dark theme for them. My only javascript fixes are for broken galleries or embedded videos (and those wouldn't even be necessary if developers wrote a fallback to noscript). It used to be that developers loaded many little scripts so I could only block the useless crap but since everything is minifed and bundled in one huge unreadable file, I just use uMatrix to block it entirely and Stylus and Tampermonkey to fix it.

zeroname 8y ago
> I don't know what the real impact is, but if your site shows me blank page without javascript(I have it off by default) I am closing the tab. I can show you "this site requires Javascript" instead, but let's just say you're not part of the target audience and that's fine. > I don't think supporting noscript version is costly because for me that's how it supposed to be by default. That highly depends on the site, of course. > 90% sites that are currently on the internet would work just fine without any js and 95% would work with as little as hackernews has. 99.9% of websites are not actually businesses that employ developers. If that's your standard, I agree. A simple webpage does not require Javascript.