3 ms·

> The better question is: Why use Javascript at all for a static website? I've been developing websites professionally since 1996. HTML/CSS/JS and SQL. I am

> The better question is: Why use Javascript at all for a static website? I've been developing websites professionally since 1996. HTML/CSS/JS and SQL. I am still amazed there is the crowd out there who is "anti-JavaScript". They run NoScript to only allow it in certain places, etc. It's 2023, a small amount of JavaScript on a page isn't going to hurt anyone and will (hopefully) improve the UX. For the record, the last site I deployed as a personal project had 0 JavaScript. It was all statically generated HTML on the server in C#/Sqlite that was pushed to Github Pages. So I get it, it's not necessary. For my little personal site. I'm also the senior lead on an enterprise Angular project. JavaScript is fine, it's not going anywhere. And yes, there are way too many React (specifically) websites that don't even need a framework at all, but it's become the go-to. That annoys me too. But some JavaScript in 2023 is fine.

mnw21cam 3y ago
I won't argue that JS doesn't add something to the web experience. My main reason for having JS switched off by default is because JS adds something to the web experience. Namely, a whole load of annoying things like outrageously illegal cookie banners, adverts over the top of the content you're trying to read, auto-play videos on an unrelated topic when you just want to read the article, paywalls, "invitations" to have notifications or sign up to a newsletter, browser fingerprinting, active tracking, and outright malware. It's a signal to noise ratio thing. There's a small reason to have JS switched on and a large reason to block it. I'd love it if the reason to have JS switched on was even smaller, and that is in fact the recommendation (that JS should enhance an otherwise functional site). I enable JS on sites where I regard the reward as worth it, but most of the time it just isn't, and I don't trust all the rubbish that gets included in the average site.

mnw21cam 3y ago

I won't argue that JS doesn't add something to the web experience. My main reason for having JS switched off by default is because JS adds something to the web experience. Namely, a whole load of annoying things like outrageously illegal cookie banners, adverts over the top of the content you're trying to read, auto-play videos on an unrelated topic when you just want to read the article, paywalls, "invitations" to have notifications or sign up to a newsletter, browser fingerprinting, active tracking, and outright malware. It's a signal to noise ratio thing. There's a small reason to have JS switched on and a large reason to block it. I'd love it if the reason to have JS switched on was even smaller, and that is in fact the recommendation (that JS should enhance an otherwise functional site). I enable JS on sites where I regard the reward as worth it, but most of the time it just isn't, and I don't trust all the rubbish that gets included in the average site.