23 ms·

I totally agree with that. It is not like some web police force is holding people at gunpoint to add javascript and angular or react. People use all those featu

by ozim 6y ago

I totally agree with that. It is not like some web police force is holding people at gunpoint to add javascript and angular or react. People use all those features because they want to and they find it useful.

coronadisaster 6y ago
> they find it useful Sometimes it is just the latest trend...
Symbiote 6y ago
This protocol doesn't seem to be aimed at commercial use, but the "web police" called "the manager" or "the marketing department" or whatever are the ones forcing the use of the privacy-invading tools.
iamstupidsimple 6y ago
The original Facebook and Google did not use much JavaScript, so I'm always skeptical when literal documents need it for anything other than ads (and even then...).
- colejohnson66 6y ago
  And the screen refreshed every time you did something as it loaded a new page. Just because it’s abused doesn’t mean JS doesn’t have uses.
  - lal 6y ago
    the screen refreshed every time you browsed to new content or did something that required accessing new content, as one would intuitively expect
    - ddalex 6y ago
      I never understood the hangup on screen refreshes - I mean, why is it important that the screen doesn't refresh? And if it's that important that EVERYBODY deploys JS to render client side to avoid the refreshes, why isn't this handled at the browser level in the first place (i.e. declare "ExtendDisplayTime"-something on your document and the browser should replace the screen content only AFTER the new page is completely painted). But at the core of it, the web is a document-display system, and back-hammering and shoe-horning apps that masquerade as documents will always be painful.
petra 6y ago
Maybe, instead of the spec allowing/banning javascript, it would only allow usage of curated list of "apps" to be part of the page ? For example, i'm thinking of a roam research like content platform, without tracking and ads. It would be interesting to see shared content around that.
gchamonlive 6y ago
Legacy and momentum plays a greater role in adopting a framework than sheer choice. If I could choose I would use frameworks in haskell or rust 100% of the time where I work. I don't because there is nothing built around it there and I need to get the job done right now. I would like to be the change I want to see, but sometimes there is just not enough time.
- acheron9383 6y ago
  That is a solid point, at the end of the day, programming languages and frameworks are just tools we use to build a product that has some use to someone (Be that monetary value or art or whatever). At work, it is almost always better to just iterate on the existing tool stack rather than try to spool up new one. I love writing Rust, but I'd need a good reason (or at least a big project to amortize the cost over) to reach for it over the existing very function c++ libraries I already use for our embedded work.
loup-vaillant 6y ago
There kinda is? While web sites can avoid JavaScript all right, browsing most sites does require JavaScript. As a NoScript user, I'm keenly aware of how many web sites simply do not work without JavaScript. And I'm not even talking about all the third party spyware.
- JamesLeonis 6y ago
  I had to give up doing this. I couldn't manage all of the different times websites broke over just CDNs. Lord help me if the website is Ad driven. I encourage every web developer to try running NoScript for a week. You will find it enlightening.
  - jhardy54 6y ago
    If you're already using uBlock Origin you can disable JS per site (or by default, like NoScript). I've found that the UI is way easier to understand compared to NoScript.
    - ta5hkv56f 6y ago
      uMatrix is similarly excellent (finer grained control I think is the difference). For frequently visited sites you can save which bits you want to allow so its not as onerous as you'd think. Blocks Google Analytics and Facebook's poison by default.
  - imtringued 6y ago
    I'm not sure what you would gain from disabling things like the ability to upload multiple files, autocomplete fields and rich text editing. Raging against and disabling Javascript is just stupid in my viewpoint. I'm not going to cut out absolutely essential features just to satisfy some fringe group.
- Silke_Mousepad 6y ago
  What if JS over gemini:// would only be able to render some things and would not have network access? It just is a question of what your html renderer allows. Add Lua if you think that's better! But you will have the same problems if embedded Lua can do network stuff. ...or let's just P2P our Emacsens... the last non divisive browser... :-P
lal 6y ago
This is more intended to be a comfier gopher than a less-shitty http. Most of its early adherents are ex-phloggers attracted to its features relative to gopher, not ex-webbers attracted to its lack of client-side scripting or whatever. The fact that this has attracted a fair number of gopher users (who have always very strongly opposed http/s) would seem proof enough of it's success, imo, at least within particular circles, and at least within the context of its goals. It was never intended to draw people away from the web, it was intended to be a sort of superpowered gopher.
jbverschoor 6y ago
Actually they do. If you do not fill in your taxes, which are powered by JavaScript, people with hubs are going to come for you and take you hostage, I. Order to rob you from your “tax” money..
- imtringued 6y ago
  I can file my taxes without using a computer. I've done so for many years.

by ozim 6y ago

coronadisaster 6y ago

> they find it useful Sometimes it is just the latest trend...

Symbiote 6y ago

This protocol doesn't seem to be aimed at commercial use, but the "web police" called "the manager" or "the marketing department" or whatever are the ones forcing the use of the privacy-invading tools.

iamstupidsimple 6y ago

The original Facebook and Google did not use much JavaScript, so I'm always skeptical when literal documents need it for anything other than ads (and even then...).

colejohnson66 6y ago
And the screen refreshed every time you did something as it loaded a new page. Just because it’s abused doesn’t mean JS doesn’t have uses.
- lal 6y ago
  the screen refreshed every time you browsed to new content or did something that required accessing new content, as one would intuitively expect
  - ddalex 6y ago
    I never understood the hangup on screen refreshes - I mean, why is it important that the screen doesn't refresh? And if it's that important that EVERYBODY deploys JS to render client side to avoid the refreshes, why isn't this handled at the browser level in the first place (i.e. declare "ExtendDisplayTime"-something on your document and the browser should replace the screen content only AFTER the new page is completely painted). But at the core of it, the web is a document-display system, and back-hammering and shoe-horning apps that masquerade as documents will always be painful.

petra 6y ago

Maybe, instead of the spec allowing/banning javascript, it would only allow usage of curated list of "apps" to be part of the page ? For example, i'm thinking of a roam research like content platform, without tracking and ads. It would be interesting to see shared content around that.

gchamonlive 6y ago

Legacy and momentum plays a greater role in adopting a framework than sheer choice. If I could choose I would use frameworks in haskell or rust 100% of the time where I work. I don't because there is nothing built around it there and I need to get the job done right now. I would like to be the change I want to see, but sometimes there is just not enough time.

acheron9383 6y ago
That is a solid point, at the end of the day, programming languages and frameworks are just tools we use to build a product that has some use to someone (Be that monetary value or art or whatever). At work, it is almost always better to just iterate on the existing tool stack rather than try to spool up new one. I love writing Rust, but I'd need a good reason (or at least a big project to amortize the cost over) to reach for it over the existing very function c++ libraries I already use for our embedded work.

loup-vaillant 6y ago

There kinda is? While web sites can avoid JavaScript all right, browsing most sites does require JavaScript. As a NoScript user, I'm keenly aware of how many web sites simply do not work without JavaScript. And I'm not even talking about all the third party spyware.

JamesLeonis 6y ago
I had to give up doing this. I couldn't manage all of the different times websites broke over just CDNs. Lord help me if the website is Ad driven. I encourage every web developer to try running NoScript for a week. You will find it enlightening.
- jhardy54 6y ago
  If you're already using uBlock Origin you can disable JS per site (or by default, like NoScript). I've found that the UI is way easier to understand compared to NoScript.
  - ta5hkv56f 6y ago
    uMatrix is similarly excellent (finer grained control I think is the difference). For frequently visited sites you can save which bits you want to allow so its not as onerous as you'd think. Blocks Google Analytics and Facebook's poison by default.
- imtringued 6y ago
  I'm not sure what you would gain from disabling things like the ability to upload multiple files, autocomplete fields and rich text editing. Raging against and disabling Javascript is just stupid in my viewpoint. I'm not going to cut out absolutely essential features just to satisfy some fringe group.
Silke_Mousepad 6y ago
What if JS over gemini:// would only be able to render some things and would not have network access? It just is a question of what your html renderer allows. Add Lua if you think that's better! But you will have the same problems if embedded Lua can do network stuff. ...or let's just P2P our Emacsens... the last non divisive browser... :-P

lal 6y ago

This is more intended to be a comfier gopher than a less-shitty http. Most of its early adherents are ex-phloggers attracted to its features relative to gopher, not ex-webbers attracted to its lack of client-side scripting or whatever. The fact that this has attracted a fair number of gopher users (who have always very strongly opposed http/s) would seem proof enough of it's success, imo, at least within particular circles, and at least within the context of its goals. It was never intended to draw people away from the web, it was intended to be a sort of superpowered gopher.

jbverschoor 6y ago

Actually they do. If you do not fill in your taxes, which are powered by JavaScript, people with hubs are going to come for you and take you hostage, I. Order to rob you from your “tax” money..

imtringued 6y ago
I can file my taxes without using a computer. I've done so for many years.