Client-side JavaScript is sometimes a good idea, but it's absurd to think that all sites require it, and I think it's grossly overused. Most sites are mostly-s

Client-side JavaScript is sometimes a good idea, but it's absurd to think that all sites require it, and I think it's grossly overused. Most sites are mostly-static content. If your site is static, HTML and CSS are all you should be using. If it's mostly static, server-side implementations or minor JavaScript sprinklings on HTML and CSS are often simpler, cheaper, and much more maintainable. Server-side implementations tend to be much easier to use, and work just as well when your users disable JavaScript because they want more security and privacy. Accessibility is possible with client-side JavaScript, but it's far cheaper & easier without it. Some sites can't be implemented server-side (or are sensible to do completely disconnected), and then you really do need the interactivity of full-on client-side JavaScript. In my experience, requiring full-on client-side JavaScript tends to be more complex and time-consuming to implement, and often tends to have serious loading time lag (with careful design it can be addressed, but often it never seems to get addressed). Everything is a trade-off. The usual cause of excessive complexity is engineering based on the latest fad, instead of what is actually the best choice.