3 ms·

I don't disagree. Heck, all of the websites I maintain for work require JS (although to be fair I also control the requirements for users: the latest version of

I don't disagree. Heck, all of the websites I maintain for work require JS (although to be fair I also control the requirements for users: the latest version of Firefox or Chrome). I do wish the cost of requiring JavaScript was higher, though.

davnicwil 7y ago
Genuinely interested, not assuming/implying I'm right - why? I think just insisting on JS is, for most applications, the best thing for the most people. If the app is such that it has maximum availability as one of its top goals (government public service, public infrastructure, bill paying etc) I completely get it, but otherwise I'm just not convinced that not requiring JS is somehow inherently good. If you'll allow a pretty weak analogy, it's almost like refusing to use a car and insisting upon using a horse and cart. You may have your own good reasons for doing that, and that's completely fine, you are free to make that choice, but you absolutely should expect the modern roads not to cater to you, and to be very often inconvenienced. Indeed, you shouldn't really expect society to spend lots of tax money catering to your choice and designing all roads, junctions, etc with it in mind, beyond the very minimum level so you can at least use the most important roads.
- ptx 7y ago
  It's more like suggesting that perhaps sometimes walking is better than taking a car, while more fashionable developers insist on trying to use the car to go from the kitchen to the living room. And you still have to walk to the car.
- zonidjan 7y ago
  I would use instead the analogy of a car and a bike. And indeed society does cater toward the bike, in many places. But rather than any analogy, think about how many times more powerful a modern computer is than a computer from 2000. Now think about how many times more "things" you can do on that computer simultaneously. The latter is much smaller than the former.

davnicwil 7y ago

Genuinely interested, not assuming/implying I'm right - why? I think just insisting on JS is, for most applications, the best thing for the most people. If the app is such that it has maximum availability as one of its top goals (government public service, public infrastructure, bill paying etc) I completely get it, but otherwise I'm just not convinced that not requiring JS is somehow inherently good. If you'll allow a pretty weak analogy, it's almost like refusing to use a car and insisting upon using a horse and cart. You may have your own good reasons for doing that, and that's completely fine, you are free to make that choice, but you absolutely should expect the modern roads not to cater to you, and to be very often inconvenienced. Indeed, you shouldn't really expect society to spend lots of tax money catering to your choice and designing all roads, junctions, etc with it in mind, beyond the very minimum level so you can at least use the most important roads.

ptx 7y ago
It's more like suggesting that perhaps sometimes walking is better than taking a car, while more fashionable developers insist on trying to use the car to go from the kitchen to the living room. And you still have to walk to the car.
zonidjan 7y ago
I would use instead the analogy of a car and a bike. And indeed society does cater toward the bike, in many places. But rather than any analogy, think about how many times more powerful a modern computer is than a computer from 2000. Now think about how many times more "things" you can do on that computer simultaneously. The latter is much smaller than the former.