When I was learning web dev I cared since it's a useful way to learn. Now it's not that I care what my View Source looks like, it's that I care what my Source

When I was learning web dev I cared since it's a useful way to learn. Now it's not that I care what my View Source looks like, it's that I care what my Source looks like. If big sites want an extra compile step before publishing that minimizes/compresses/optimizes/assemblies my nice-looking source, I don't really care. (And if your stuff is actually under an open source license I hope it's readable somewhere.) I just happen to not do that so my default non-caring state is a less-work state, my view source looks the same as my source (at least once a template is done populating). I don't buy the "JS is the assembly of the web" line. If that's true, JS is a crap language for being an assembly. Have W3C make a standard for a language that would be a better assembly than JS and have JS compile to that. (Perhaps after the current set of browser wars dies down and a clear winner of a JS engine can be determined.)