3 ms·
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 upside
by 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 agoOh, 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 agoI’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.