4 ms·

A big thank you to those who are starting to support people like me who are js-allergic for varied reasons of security, efficiency, privacy, and general control

A big thank you to those who are starting to support people like me who are js-allergic for varied reasons of security, efficiency, privacy, and general control over our own machines.

cactus2093 6y ago
Allergic is a bad analogy, a person can't choose to have an allergy or not. Try: A big thank you to those who are starting to support people like me who are entitled fundamentalists for vague, unsubstantiated reasons of security, efficiency, privacy, and general control over our own machines.
- ramphastidae 6y ago
  What a rude and ignorant comment.
nicbou 6y ago
What is your internet experience like in general? How often do you encounter road blocks on sites that shouldn't require JavaScript to function?
- throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
  It would be astonishingly easy to find out... give it a try. I should clarify, I'm only moaning about JS used where it need not be, in the display of text and pictures. Essentially, stativc web pages. There are guys on this thread who are trying to make apps work withou JS and I'm getting uneasy about that - that level of functionality should, and perhaps must, be done client-side or the excess bandwidth and server-side load will become unmanageable. I would still not enable JS to allow those, but I can see why others would. To answer you, try it. Some is fine, like no-JS gmail pages being snappy and working correctly. I'm sure I'm missing some stuff, I think drag & drop of attachments from the desktop are there, instead I have to click buttons and select the attchment from a popup, that's fine. Others are pages that literally are text and pics but won't show anything, such as https://www.washingtonpost.com/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/ Microsoft used to be particularly bad at this. Edit: some are text and image but will fail to render properly, with text flowing over images, images overlapping, general crapness like that. This is uncommon. Others are absurdly worse - they actually show the text etc. as the page renders, then hide it when it's loaded and tell you you need to enable js to view it. Can't find an example now (but MS was one). Now the upsides - I don't need any security or anti-virus/malware software, which speeds things up already. No JS means pages appear much faster (compared to JS-enabled computers I uses at work). No adverts (except small self-hosted ones starting to appear) - much faster. So much less distraction! No animations to draw your eyes. In one way this is the biggest immediate thing (you need a blocklist to do this properly - see MVPS (http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm) or similar, or some add-on, but just disabling JS kills most of it anyway). No f%^&* popups in your face with 'helpful' agents trying to chat to you (this would be occasionally useful if they weren't so goddamn intrusive and cover stuff you want to see), or trying to get you to buy stuff, or distracting you or covering shit up, or playing sounds, or auto-playing videos. Honestly, once you get used to that, the odd stillness of it all (it does seem a little odd at first, we naturally are drawn to movement) it's bliss, it really is (speaking IME). So, give it a try for a day, and see for yourself - would you consider that?
  - throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
    I just realised I hadn't actually answered your question. I'd say about 80% of the websites remain usable, to varying degrees. It's hard to say because I'm used to losing some functionality so I won't bother going to shadertoy for example, so my stats are skewed.

A big thank you to those who are starting to support people like me who are js-allergic for varied reasons of security, efficiency, privacy, and general control over our own machines.

cactus2093 6y ago

Allergic is a bad analogy, a person can't choose to have an allergy or not. Try: A big thank you to those who are starting to support people like me who are entitled fundamentalists for vague, unsubstantiated reasons of security, efficiency, privacy, and general control over our own machines.

ramphastidae 6y ago
What a rude and ignorant comment.

nicbou 6y ago

What is your internet experience like in general? How often do you encounter road blocks on sites that shouldn't require JavaScript to function?

throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
It would be astonishingly easy to find out... give it a try. I should clarify, I'm only moaning about JS used where it need not be, in the display of text and pictures. Essentially, stativc web pages. There are guys on this thread who are trying to make apps work withou JS and I'm getting uneasy about that - that level of functionality should, and perhaps must, be done client-side or the excess bandwidth and server-side load will become unmanageable. I would still not enable JS to allow those, but I can see why others would. To answer you, try it. Some is fine, like no-JS gmail pages being snappy and working correctly. I'm sure I'm missing some stuff, I think drag & drop of attachments from the desktop are there, instead I have to click buttons and select the attchment from a popup, that's fine. Others are pages that literally are text and pics but won't show anything, such as https://www.washingtonpost.com/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/ Microsoft used to be particularly bad at this. Edit: some are text and image but will fail to render properly, with text flowing over images, images overlapping, general crapness like that. This is uncommon. Others are absurdly worse - they actually show the text etc. as the page renders, then hide it when it's loaded and tell you you need to enable js to view it. Can't find an example now (but MS was one). Now the upsides - I don't need any security or anti-virus/malware software, which speeds things up already. No JS means pages appear much faster (compared to JS-enabled computers I uses at work). No adverts (except small self-hosted ones starting to appear) - much faster. So much less distraction! No animations to draw your eyes. In one way this is the biggest immediate thing (you need a blocklist to do this properly - see MVPS (http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm) or similar, or some add-on, but just disabling JS kills most of it anyway). No f%^&* popups in your face with 'helpful' agents trying to chat to you (this would be occasionally useful if they weren't so goddamn intrusive and cover stuff you want to see), or trying to get you to buy stuff, or distracting you or covering shit up, or playing sounds, or auto-playing videos. Honestly, once you get used to that, the odd stillness of it all (it does seem a little odd at first, we naturally are drawn to movement) it's bliss, it really is (speaking IME). So, give it a try for a day, and see for yourself - would you consider that?
- throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
  I just realised I hadn't actually answered your question. I'd say about 80% of the websites remain usable, to varying degrees. It's hard to say because I'm used to losing some functionality so I won't bother going to shadertoy for example, so my stats are skewed.