4 ms·

Don't know why your comment is grey. Forced Javascript is a blight on the internet. https://archive.is/fxqui https://archive.is/fxqui

0xbadcafebee 4y ago
Blight on the web, you mean. The internet is what you pass packets over. The web is what you pass memes over.
- gpderetta 4y ago
  I'm sure there must be an IP-Over-Meme implementation somewhere.
- EvanAnderson 4y ago
  The Internet is a thing is used to pass HTTPS which we then tunnel all new protocols over.
pc86 4y ago
I actually upvoted the comment because it's true (and it's positive now anyway), but it was probably negative because people complaining about the platform on which a given link is posted is pretty boring, and happens pretty regularly. Surprisingly regularly especially when you consider that approximately 0% of regular web users have JS disabled so there's not exactly a strong incentive to build for that crowd.
arcanemachiner 4y ago
JavaScript is fine. It's just a tool. Like a hammer. A hammer can be an important part of building breathtaking architecture. It can also be used to gouge somebody's eyes out. Just like JavaScript. EDIT: That "web app" was very nice to use.
savanaly 4y ago
>Please don't complain about tangential annoyances—e.g. article or website formats, name collisions, or back-button breakage. They're too common to be interesting. From https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- wereallterrrist 4y ago
  Nah. Its accessibility at this point and its time we start talking about it, yes, even here. The internet is being ruined by js and screenshotted or otherwise uncopyable, inaccessible text.
  - dorkwood 4y ago
    What about things like games in the browser? A few of those are part of my daily ritual.
  - raxxorraxor 4y ago
    Not necessarily. Without JS some sites would be horrible to use. I don't even know if it is possible to submit a form without reloading the page. It probably is by now but a lot of basic functionality either needs JS, very complex server-side rendering or url resource structure. And server side rendering can be as ugly, it is just less visible. We can be really lucky that there is a universal language on the client side for web browsers. Even if it is often abused, it is very much worth it. Maybe not the most elegant language, but probably one of the fasted to develop with.
deanCommie 4y ago
> Forced Javascript is a blight on the internet Do you genuinely believe this is still an open question? I won't dispute the argument that maybe it was a mistake, but to me it seems indisputable the ship has sailed. I might buy the argument that any "mandatory" websites - government, library, academic - should be operational without Javascript. But in the casual or entertainment domain, noone is obligated to provide their users an operational Javascript-free website. If you can't read something without Javascript, that's a you problem.
- NotYourLawyer 4y ago
  Most websites are far better with JS disabled. They're responsive, they have fewer ads, they don't assault me with autoplaying video/audio, they don't track me (as much), they don't make my laptop fan spin up and waste my battery. Just absolutely better in every way. Some websites don't function without JS. I either enable it on a case-by-case basis, or avoid those websites.
  - deanCommie 4y ago
    That seems like a more modern internet problem solved better by Ublock Origin than blocking all of Javascript. the 2000s and early 2010s era internet ("Web 2.0") was richer with Javascript WITHOUT all the gargantuan trackers and auto-playing videos.
aaron695 4y ago
Because it's ok you guys are babies but it's not ok to tell us everytime you go potty. It's banned in the rules on the site. No-one wants to hear about your off topic journey of self discovery. Maybe Reddit does?

0xbadcafebee 4y ago

Blight on the web, you mean. The internet is what you pass packets over. The web is what you pass memes over.

gpderetta 4y ago
I'm sure there must be an IP-Over-Meme implementation somewhere.
EvanAnderson 4y ago
The Internet is a thing is used to pass HTTPS which we then tunnel all new protocols over.

pc86 4y ago

I actually upvoted the comment because it's true (and it's positive now anyway), but it was probably negative because people complaining about the platform on which a given link is posted is pretty boring, and happens pretty regularly. Surprisingly regularly especially when you consider that approximately 0% of regular web users have JS disabled so there's not exactly a strong incentive to build for that crowd.

arcanemachiner 4y ago

JavaScript is fine. It's just a tool. Like a hammer. A hammer can be an important part of building breathtaking architecture. It can also be used to gouge somebody's eyes out. Just like JavaScript. EDIT: That "web app" was very nice to use.

savanaly 4y ago

>Please don't complain about tangential annoyances—e.g. article or website formats, name collisions, or back-button breakage. They're too common to be interesting. From https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

wereallterrrist 4y ago
Nah. Its accessibility at this point and its time we start talking about it, yes, even here. The internet is being ruined by js and screenshotted or otherwise uncopyable, inaccessible text.
- dorkwood 4y ago
  What about things like games in the browser? A few of those are part of my daily ritual.
- raxxorraxor 4y ago
  Not necessarily. Without JS some sites would be horrible to use. I don't even know if it is possible to submit a form without reloading the page. It probably is by now but a lot of basic functionality either needs JS, very complex server-side rendering or url resource structure. And server side rendering can be as ugly, it is just less visible. We can be really lucky that there is a universal language on the client side for web browsers. Even if it is often abused, it is very much worth it. Maybe not the most elegant language, but probably one of the fasted to develop with.

deanCommie 4y ago

> Forced Javascript is a blight on the internet Do you genuinely believe this is still an open question? I won't dispute the argument that maybe it was a mistake, but to me it seems indisputable the ship has sailed. I might buy the argument that any "mandatory" websites - government, library, academic - should be operational without Javascript. But in the casual or entertainment domain, noone is obligated to provide their users an operational Javascript-free website. If you can't read something without Javascript, that's a you problem.

NotYourLawyer 4y ago
Most websites are far better with JS disabled. They're responsive, they have fewer ads, they don't assault me with autoplaying video/audio, they don't track me (as much), they don't make my laptop fan spin up and waste my battery. Just absolutely better in every way. Some websites don't function without JS. I either enable it on a case-by-case basis, or avoid those websites.
- deanCommie 4y ago
  That seems like a more modern internet problem solved better by Ublock Origin than blocking all of Javascript. the 2000s and early 2010s era internet ("Web 2.0") was richer with Javascript WITHOUT all the gargantuan trackers and auto-playing videos.

aaron695 4y ago

Because it's ok you guys are babies but it's not ok to tell us everytime you go potty. It's banned in the rules on the site. No-one wants to hear about your off topic journey of self discovery. Maybe Reddit does?