4 ms·

> I sometimes wonder if the people claiming to hate client-side technologies or disable JS in their browsers have actually ever had to build a complex website t

> I sometimes wonder if the people claiming to hate client-side technologies or disable JS in their browsers have actually ever had to build a complex website to put food on their table. My bet is the answer is often no, or they are a contrarian in general. I have a 20 year history of building websites, and a recent three year stint of building front-end applications professionally using mostly React, which I'm now proficient in. I also normally use a strict whitelisting policy for Javascript using NoScript. If it's not a tool that depends on it that I really want to use, or if I find no obvious reason for it to be using Javascript, websites don't get added to the whitelist. Javascript, as far as I'm concerned, is a wide open vector for an ongoing large scale attack on my privacy. Not only that, but I also have to pay for it in battery life and memory. The occasional blog built in React without a static fallback will usually go unread on my end, and no one is losing sleep over it. I also think that you are fundamentally missing the point of the article if you your experiences building native applications vs building web applications is supposed to offer a counterargument. It's a false dichotomy in this case; the blog was never a native desktop app. The marketing site was never a native desktop app. They're collections of documents and I have no idea how anyone could come to believe that arranging that using a framework designed to facilitate reactive web applications is easier than just delivering the documents using technology designed to do so.

dbbk 6y ago
Do you also wear tinfoil hats?
- nyanpasu64 6y ago
  I spent several months with JS off by default. I relented after one too many broken sites. Since then, I've suffered from sites with HTML popups, autoplaying videos, and not one, but two "subscribe to my newsletter" prompts which trigger when you move your mouse to the address bar. Disabling JS by default severely reduces the ability of websites to pull user-hostile tricks (though it breaks web apps). No website (presenting static information to be consumed) should ever break with JS off, and any site that does is defective. I won't extend this to web apps (interactive dynamic functionality like Google Docs) though.
- boomlinde 6y ago
  If you mean to equate wearing tinfoil hats with employing a blacklist-by-default Javascript policy I'd gladly hear your reasoning. I'm sure it would help others not confuse your point with vapid shitposting, as well.
  - dbbk 6y ago
    Yes, that's what I'm equating it with. I think it's a fair analogy. Disabling Javascript isn't enough to 'protect your privacy', and even if it was, I haven't heard of any tangible impact that would have on anyone's life.
    - boomlinde 6y ago
      > Yes, that's what I'm equating it with. I think it's a fair analogy. That you think it's a fair analogy doesn't help me in the slightest to understand what your reasoning is. > Disabling Javascript isn't enough to 'protect your privacy', In the same sense as wearing a face shield while operating a chainsaw is not enough to save your life. It goes a long way. > I haven't heard of any tangible impact that would have on anyone's life. Have you heard of Facebook? Google?
      - dbbk 6y ago
        Okay, taking Facebook as an example. Let's say you visit a random website and get tracked by a Facebook Pixel (which happens to be an image, not JavaScript), what happens then? You see behaviourally-targeted advertisements on Facebook and partner destinations, instead of generically-targeted advertisements. I don't agree with the assertion that this has a materially negative impact on anyone's privacy or life as a whole. I understand that this is an unpopular opinion, but it's what I believe.
        boomlinde 6y ago
        > I don't agree with the assertion that this has a materially negative impact on anyone's privacy or life as a whole. I haven't asserted that it has any negative impact. To say that it has no tangible impact (as you have) is decidedly wrong. Either the manipulation is working at a grand scale (which is scary in its own right), or people that invest that much money in targeted ads are idiots buying snake oil. Regardless, Facebook and Google now command huge social and political influence, and they're entirely in the business of using my private information to sell ads. I guess wanting to be the constant target of increasingly direct attempts at manipulation is a matter of personal preference, but the fact that it has an obvious material impact on the world is not.

dbbk 6y ago

Do you also wear tinfoil hats?

nyanpasu64 6y ago
I spent several months with JS off by default. I relented after one too many broken sites. Since then, I've suffered from sites with HTML popups, autoplaying videos, and not one, but two "subscribe to my newsletter" prompts which trigger when you move your mouse to the address bar. Disabling JS by default severely reduces the ability of websites to pull user-hostile tricks (though it breaks web apps). No website (presenting static information to be consumed) should ever break with JS off, and any site that does is defective. I won't extend this to web apps (interactive dynamic functionality like Google Docs) though.
boomlinde 6y ago
If you mean to equate wearing tinfoil hats with employing a blacklist-by-default Javascript policy I'd gladly hear your reasoning. I'm sure it would help others not confuse your point with vapid shitposting, as well.
- dbbk 6y ago
  Yes, that's what I'm equating it with. I think it's a fair analogy. Disabling Javascript isn't enough to 'protect your privacy', and even if it was, I haven't heard of any tangible impact that would have on anyone's life.
  - boomlinde 6y ago
    > Yes, that's what I'm equating it with. I think it's a fair analogy. That you think it's a fair analogy doesn't help me in the slightest to understand what your reasoning is. > Disabling Javascript isn't enough to 'protect your privacy', In the same sense as wearing a face shield while operating a chainsaw is not enough to save your life. It goes a long way. > I haven't heard of any tangible impact that would have on anyone's life. Have you heard of Facebook? Google?
    - dbbk 6y ago
      Okay, taking Facebook as an example. Let's say you visit a random website and get tracked by a Facebook Pixel (which happens to be an image, not JavaScript), what happens then? You see behaviourally-targeted advertisements on Facebook and partner destinations, instead of generically-targeted advertisements. I don't agree with the assertion that this has a materially negative impact on anyone's privacy or life as a whole. I understand that this is an unpopular opinion, but it's what I believe.
      - boomlinde 6y ago
        > I don't agree with the assertion that this has a materially negative impact on anyone's privacy or life as a whole. I haven't asserted that it has any negative impact. To say that it has no tangible impact (as you have) is decidedly wrong. Either the manipulation is working at a grand scale (which is scary in its own right), or people that invest that much money in targeted ads are idiots buying snake oil. Regardless, Facebook and Google now command huge social and political influence, and they're entirely in the business of using my private information to sell ads. I guess wanting to be the constant target of increasingly direct attempts at manipulation is a matter of personal preference, but the fact that it has an obvious material impact on the world is not.