> The point is that web pages don't inherently need to do "pretty much anything." The web could have been simple and browsers could be simple. Stakeholders deci

> The point is that web pages don't inherently need to do "pretty much anything." The web could have been simple and browsers could be simple. Stakeholders decided that no, we want more and more and more and even more features. I did kindof address that in my final sentence. But there is a fair amount of inherent complexity in what I would want from a replacement for the web. The web interface for Github should still be possible. Doing that would require a graphical layout engine (eg something like css), some way to manage authentication, and some way of submitting user data from a form. None of those require a turing-complete language, so I would perhaps be in favor of not having a JS equivalent, which would dramatically simplify the task of a browser, but there is still a lot of complexity there. > And when you say simple is not correct, it is often because someone wants something complicated instead of acknowledging that simple, in fact, does all they really need. The easiest case to say the simple is not enough is with encryption. I am not aware of any simple encryption algorithm. If you want to achieve, communication that others cannot eavesdrop in, simple is not enough. Numerical stability in all sorts of applications is important and it is hard to achieve. Projecting the real number line into finite bits is hard to do in a consistent way. You didn't contest my simple vs fast claim, but a good example of that is pathfinding algorithms. Dijkstra's algorithm is simple (relatively), but for many video games, a more advanced algorithm like hierarchical A* search or jump point search is needed.