5 ms·

I know, the author was completely wrong. While the web dev did a mistake, it was not as egregious as the manufacturers locking his mom into a corner.

theandrewbailey 5y ago
The dev made a mistake by having a Javascript error totally break the site. Websites should still be functional (even if a bit inconvenient) without Javascript.
- autokad 5y ago
  No. Stop defending bad practice. its conceivable there are new functions that are not backwards compatible. At some point you need to be able to update your browser. its the fact she is locked out from doing that is what puts her in the pickle. Google and Apple made sure she can't get a new browser so that she would purchase a new device. period.
  - null_object 5y ago
    > Apple made sure she can't get a new browser so that she would purchase a new device. period. Just bullshit. There are plenty of browsers being updated and fully compatible with iOS 12.
    - LinAGKar 5y ago
      Not, there isn't, because no one else is allowed to make a browser for iOS. Any other "browser" on there is just a reskin of the built-in Safari.
    - autokad 5y ago
      did you even read the article?
  - neon_electro 5y ago
    Arguing that websites should support the least common denominator of functionality and then progressively enhance for modern functionality is not simultaneously defending corporations' planned obsolescence. Both problems can be solved independently.
- vlunkr 5y ago
  > Websites should still be functional (even if a bit inconvenient) without Javascript. I don't see why it needs to go that far. They could have just not used the optional chaining operator, or used a pre-processor if they really wanted to use it. Very few people are browsing with no JS at all, and they are doing it deliberately. They probably disagree with me, but I don't think anyone should do extra work for them.
  - pier25 5y ago
    Exactly. The cost to make a website accessible to everyone is so high that it really only makes sense for critical websites.
    - bmeski 5y ago
      It’s really not if you simply stick to html, css, and a tiny bit of js on the client.
      - pier25 5y ago
        Unfortunately that approach doesn't work for many (most?) use cases.
        bmeski 5y ago
        What? They are literally the 3 client “languages” of the web. Everything your abstractions/frameworks do is produce html, css, and js.
        pier25 5y ago
        What does that even mean?
  - berdario 5y ago
    It's not about choosing to be > browsing with no JS at all, It's about building a reliable product. I've witnessed tons of cases of websites broken due to Javascript. Sometimes they were broken in Firefox, other times they were broken only in some locales... Often they were not broken forever, a bad release got pushed, and it took some times for the problems to be identified and addressed... but in the meanwhile, a specific part of their website was broken 100% of the time. If you're building the new Google Maps, sure... knock yourself out with the fanciest Javascript you can find (but even then, I'd set a restrictive CSP, to avoid other script from interfering, and I'd pick something like Elm to make sure that runtime errors are minimized). But if you're building anything else, you should really try to keep it simple (even Gmail still has its plain HTML version)

theandrewbailey 5y ago

The dev made a mistake by having a Javascript error totally break the site. Websites should still be functional (even if a bit inconvenient) without Javascript.

autokad 5y ago
No. Stop defending bad practice. its conceivable there are new functions that are not backwards compatible. At some point you need to be able to update your browser. its the fact she is locked out from doing that is what puts her in the pickle. Google and Apple made sure she can't get a new browser so that she would purchase a new device. period.
- null_object 5y ago
  > Apple made sure she can't get a new browser so that she would purchase a new device. period. Just bullshit. There are plenty of browsers being updated and fully compatible with iOS 12.
  - LinAGKar 5y ago
    Not, there isn't, because no one else is allowed to make a browser for iOS. Any other "browser" on there is just a reskin of the built-in Safari.
  - autokad 5y ago
    did you even read the article?
- neon_electro 5y ago
  Arguing that websites should support the least common denominator of functionality and then progressively enhance for modern functionality is not simultaneously defending corporations' planned obsolescence. Both problems can be solved independently.
vlunkr 5y ago
> Websites should still be functional (even if a bit inconvenient) without Javascript. I don't see why it needs to go that far. They could have just not used the optional chaining operator, or used a pre-processor if they really wanted to use it. Very few people are browsing with no JS at all, and they are doing it deliberately. They probably disagree with me, but I don't think anyone should do extra work for them.
- pier25 5y ago
  Exactly. The cost to make a website accessible to everyone is so high that it really only makes sense for critical websites.
  - bmeski 5y ago
    It’s really not if you simply stick to html, css, and a tiny bit of js on the client.
    - pier25 5y ago
      Unfortunately that approach doesn't work for many (most?) use cases.
      - bmeski 5y ago
        What? They are literally the 3 client “languages” of the web. Everything your abstractions/frameworks do is produce html, css, and js.
        pier25 5y ago
        What does that even mean?
- berdario 5y ago
  It's not about choosing to be > browsing with no JS at all, It's about building a reliable product. I've witnessed tons of cases of websites broken due to Javascript. Sometimes they were broken in Firefox, other times they were broken only in some locales... Often they were not broken forever, a bad release got pushed, and it took some times for the problems to be identified and addressed... but in the meanwhile, a specific part of their website was broken 100% of the time. If you're building the new Google Maps, sure... knock yourself out with the fanciest Javascript you can find (but even then, I'd set a restrictive CSP, to avoid other script from interfering, and I'd pick something like Elm to make sure that runtime errors are minimized). But if you're building anything else, you should really try to keep it simple (even Gmail still has its plain HTML version)