5 ms·

I can't be the only one that feels the whole "no js" argument is flawed. Its like "yeah it's harder to do malicious things if I disable JS, it's also harder to

I can't be the only one that feels the whole "no js" argument is flawed. Its like "yeah it's harder to do malicious things if I disable JS, it's also harder to do malicious things if I don't look at HTML at all!". Feels like throwing the baby out with the bath water.

hirako2000 6y ago
There is also the idea that rendering news, blogs, and plenty of other form content can and should work without JavaScript.
cmroanirgo 6y ago
I admit that JS brings a whole lot of simplicity to situations that would be tedious otherwise. The problem is that the maliciousness that can exist with js can sometimes outweigh it's usefulness. Looking at HN, which uses js for voting, can be replaced with the olde-school form submission method (at increased page reloads etc), so clearly JS is doing us a favor. But many sites we visit are consume only (blogs and news) and the rest are generally what we interact with only very infrequently (HN, fb, twitter). It's a rare site that actively needs js (excluding all those react/vue architected sites) that doesn't need human interaction on the first place (eg slack and chat sites that need streaming/comet server responses) Random thought: Maybe we could investigate a methodology of "jit" for js in response to human interaction. Browsers already do this to limit access to the clipboard functionality. That is, js will run only if the user clicks on a button, etc, but is otherwise dormant (even document.onload would be delayed until first click). Anything else would require permission to run. Of course, this would break the web as it exists now.
- chrismorgan 6y ago
  > Looking at HN, which uses js for voting, can be replaced with the olde-school form submission method (at increased page reloads etc), so clearly JS is doing us a favor. The JS here is is an optional enhancement that does the vote in the background. Disable JavaScript and voting still works, it just causes the page to reload. (Aside: it works by using links, but forms so that it’s a POST would be better.)
ddevault 6y ago
Surely it cannot be me who is wrong, it is all of those who are insulted by my work who are in error.
darkhorse13 6y ago
You are obviously not the only one with this view. Perhaps you are feeling this way because you frequent HN, which has a vocal number of commenters who really want to turn off JS in everything.
vlunkr 6y ago
If someone else chooses to disable JS by default, it impacts the rest of us in exactly 0 ways, so what's the problem? Certainly you can see the potential upsides, better performance, faster load times, most ads won't work, less 3rd party tracking, etc.
- bnchrch 6y ago
  Oh, as someone who's fluent in this stuff I can see the benefits. My issue is with people who complain that a site doesn't work without javascript. All I can think to say is "ya so?". I don't mean to sound petulant, I really don't. But it's one of these things that the general market has decided is optimal. Not for build sizes but for building in general.
  - deergomoo 6y ago
    I’m with you. I’m all for progressive enhancement, but beyond simplistic examples (like HN voting or fancy inputs that can fall back to HTML builtins), it’s very hard—and sometimes impossible, depending on what you need to do. I think really it comes down to where you draw the line between “document” and “application”. A document should probably work fine without needing to run any additional code. For an application, I don’t think that’s a reasonable request.
npsimons 6y ago
Here's the thing: there are so many websites that would just simply be better without JS. So many simple blog posts that all the content is simple plain text and does not need anything beyond HTML and maybe some CSS. Us JS "haters" aren't arguing against web apps or interactivity - it's the wanton misuse and abuse of the technology. By conflating our position with "well, just turn your computer off!" you're constructing a strawman.

hirako2000 6y ago

There is also the idea that rendering news, blogs, and plenty of other form content can and should work without JavaScript.

cmroanirgo 6y ago

I admit that JS brings a whole lot of simplicity to situations that would be tedious otherwise. The problem is that the maliciousness that can exist with js can sometimes outweigh it's usefulness. Looking at HN, which uses js for voting, can be replaced with the olde-school form submission method (at increased page reloads etc), so clearly JS is doing us a favor. But many sites we visit are consume only (blogs and news) and the rest are generally what we interact with only very infrequently (HN, fb, twitter). It's a rare site that actively needs js (excluding all those react/vue architected sites) that doesn't need human interaction on the first place (eg slack and chat sites that need streaming/comet server responses) Random thought: Maybe we could investigate a methodology of "jit" for js in response to human interaction. Browsers already do this to limit access to the clipboard functionality. That is, js will run only if the user clicks on a button, etc, but is otherwise dormant (even document.onload would be delayed until first click). Anything else would require permission to run. Of course, this would break the web as it exists now.

chrismorgan 6y ago
> Looking at HN, which uses js for voting, can be replaced with the olde-school form submission method (at increased page reloads etc), so clearly JS is doing us a favor. The JS here is is an optional enhancement that does the vote in the background. Disable JavaScript and voting still works, it just causes the page to reload. (Aside: it works by using links, but forms so that it’s a POST would be better.)

ddevault 6y ago

Surely it cannot be me who is wrong, it is all of those who are insulted by my work who are in error.

darkhorse13 6y ago

You are obviously not the only one with this view. Perhaps you are feeling this way because you frequent HN, which has a vocal number of commenters who really want to turn off JS in everything.

vlunkr 6y ago

If someone else chooses to disable JS by default, it impacts the rest of us in exactly 0 ways, so what's the problem? Certainly you can see the potential upsides, better performance, faster load times, most ads won't work, less 3rd party tracking, etc.

bnchrch 6y ago
Oh, as someone who's fluent in this stuff I can see the benefits. My issue is with people who complain that a site doesn't work without javascript. All I can think to say is "ya so?". I don't mean to sound petulant, I really don't. But it's one of these things that the general market has decided is optimal. Not for build sizes but for building in general.
- deergomoo 6y ago
  I’m with you. I’m all for progressive enhancement, but beyond simplistic examples (like HN voting or fancy inputs that can fall back to HTML builtins), it’s very hard—and sometimes impossible, depending on what you need to do. I think really it comes down to where you draw the line between “document” and “application”. A document should probably work fine without needing to run any additional code. For an application, I don’t think that’s a reasonable request.

npsimons 6y ago

Here's the thing: there are so many websites that would just simply be better without JS. So many simple blog posts that all the content is simple plain text and does not need anything beyond HTML and maybe some CSS. Us JS "haters" aren't arguing against web apps or interactivity - it's the wanton misuse and abuse of the technology. By conflating our position with "well, just turn your computer off!" you're constructing a strawman.