5 ms·

It's the generic HN snark that pushes for no JS websites for everything, without considering the benefits of users having such a powerful VM that probably prote

by mihaic 3y ago

It's the generic HN snark that pushes for no JS websites for everything, without considering the benefits of users having such a powerful VM that probably protected them from running random executables.

flangola7 3y ago
You shouldn't be running random executables period. At one time people still had the common sense not to run code they wasn't vetted and that they trusted.
- quickthrower2 3y ago
  You run random executables via RPC when you use the web anyway, and that code runs on the server. The problem with JS in browser has been security, specifically cross origin not that JS is code
- zweifuss 3y ago
  Your definition of common sense is not really common. Flash, for example, was one of the very early use cases of an ActiveX control. This unsafe technology was supported by Internet Explorer until the end. The IE11 engine is still an installable part of Windows 11. Netscape Navigator plug-ins also were binary code modules. NPAPI was supported by Google Chrome until 2015. There were warnings from the beginning (both with ActiveX and NPAPI), but for most engineers, getting things done took precedence over trust issues. Youtube, for example, would not have been possible until much later without Flash.
  - flangola7 3y ago
    Flash is one example of the problems of this new attitude, yes.
- foul 3y ago
  In Windows-land and seldom elsewhere, it was more like "don't run random executables and don't open attachments and ask a sysadmin about the site/flash page/applet you're about to visit". I dare you to ask your grandma what is a .vbs file, without googling...
- mihaic 3y ago
  We both know that, but then came the users that opened CoolPic.jpeg.exe and installed wallpaper packages from .ru domains. I honestly can't see a much better compromise than JS to include the common users.
- tinus_hn 3y ago
  When was that time? Was it before open source was invented? Or was it when viruses were running rampantly?
- krger 3y ago
  We no longer live in the era where the only people who use hardware that runs executables are philosopher kings with the capability of vetting them by looking at the code.
- bee_rider 3y ago
  It was not really common sense. Most people ran all sorts of random codes. If they didn’t, it was because they didn’t know how to get online to find all the good viruses. But, it was easier to avoid this common error before every site depended on it.
- phatskat 3y ago
  > At one time people still had the common sense not to run code they wasn't vetted and that they trusted. At one time? When? People have been executing arbitrary and malicious code since the moment they could share it between two computers.
tannhaeuser 3y ago
OTOH, your's is the stereotypical response from an HNer blindly pushing for developer convenience without considering the benefits and drastic power shift away from the user getting just static document data sent vs yet another VM environment to do what desktop apps are already doing, badly ;)
Dalewyn 3y ago
My web development practices were nurtured in the late 90s and early 00s. Back then JavaScript was to be used solely for non-critical, nice-to-have optional functionality that would regardless not inhibit the user; using JavaScript was contingent on your website gracefully falling back to a perfectly usable state in its absense. If your page failed to load without JavaScript, you were doing it wrong. If your JavaScript hassled your users, you were doing it wrong. I lament that that philosophy got thrown out the window some time in the early 2010s, which subsequently led to the hellscape of websites filled to its armpits with JavaShit that serve no good purpose which we see today.
- phatskat 3y ago
  That’s a bit of a rosy take of the web of the 90’s-00’s. Plenty of sites failed to render without JS, they just had a noscript tag that said “this site requires JavaScript”. Graceful degradation was ideal but often too much for sites that either weren’t small enough or who didn’t have the resources to implement it. If you were adding JS to a preexisting site, it was easier to do, but on a fresh build or redesign, timelines often meant some things just wouldn’t work but hopefully you could still navigate pages. With the rise of mobile browsers, the ability for frameworks to solve cross-browser comparability, and the general acceptance that anything beyond trivial interaction required JS, catering to a tiny crowd that didn’t like having it turned on became very unimportant to most. I do agree that graceful degradation to a state that’s still functional is ideal and something I wish had stuck around.
foul 3y ago
Probably it's the generic HN snark in revolt against the modern365 world, but the http/html/js kludge has been so effective and malleable that killed a lot of thriving cyberspaces (and for some it killed dialogue and public opinion entirely). But i'm sure the human race will outlive the web 2/3/4 circus.

by mihaic 3y ago

flangola7 3y ago

You shouldn't be running random executables period. At one time people still had the common sense not to run code they wasn't vetted and that they trusted.

quickthrower2 3y ago
You run random executables via RPC when you use the web anyway, and that code runs on the server. The problem with JS in browser has been security, specifically cross origin not that JS is code
zweifuss 3y ago
Your definition of common sense is not really common. Flash, for example, was one of the very early use cases of an ActiveX control. This unsafe technology was supported by Internet Explorer until the end. The IE11 engine is still an installable part of Windows 11. Netscape Navigator plug-ins also were binary code modules. NPAPI was supported by Google Chrome until 2015. There were warnings from the beginning (both with ActiveX and NPAPI), but for most engineers, getting things done took precedence over trust issues. Youtube, for example, would not have been possible until much later without Flash.
- flangola7 3y ago
  Flash is one example of the problems of this new attitude, yes.
foul 3y ago
In Windows-land and seldom elsewhere, it was more like "don't run random executables and don't open attachments and ask a sysadmin about the site/flash page/applet you're about to visit". I dare you to ask your grandma what is a .vbs file, without googling...
mihaic 3y ago
We both know that, but then came the users that opened CoolPic.jpeg.exe and installed wallpaper packages from .ru domains. I honestly can't see a much better compromise than JS to include the common users.
tinus_hn 3y ago
When was that time? Was it before open source was invented? Or was it when viruses were running rampantly?
krger 3y ago
We no longer live in the era where the only people who use hardware that runs executables are philosopher kings with the capability of vetting them by looking at the code.
bee_rider 3y ago
It was not really common sense. Most people ran all sorts of random codes. If they didn’t, it was because they didn’t know how to get online to find all the good viruses. But, it was easier to avoid this common error before every site depended on it.
phatskat 3y ago
> At one time people still had the common sense not to run code they wasn't vetted and that they trusted. At one time? When? People have been executing arbitrary and malicious code since the moment they could share it between two computers.

tannhaeuser 3y ago

OTOH, your's is the stereotypical response from an HNer blindly pushing for developer convenience without considering the benefits and drastic power shift away from the user getting just static document data sent vs yet another VM environment to do what desktop apps are already doing, badly ;)

Dalewyn 3y ago

My web development practices were nurtured in the late 90s and early 00s. Back then JavaScript was to be used solely for non-critical, nice-to-have optional functionality that would regardless not inhibit the user; using JavaScript was contingent on your website gracefully falling back to a perfectly usable state in its absense. If your page failed to load without JavaScript, you were doing it wrong. If your JavaScript hassled your users, you were doing it wrong. I lament that that philosophy got thrown out the window some time in the early 2010s, which subsequently led to the hellscape of websites filled to its armpits with JavaShit that serve no good purpose which we see today.

phatskat 3y ago
That’s a bit of a rosy take of the web of the 90’s-00’s. Plenty of sites failed to render without JS, they just had a noscript tag that said “this site requires JavaScript”. Graceful degradation was ideal but often too much for sites that either weren’t small enough or who didn’t have the resources to implement it. If you were adding JS to a preexisting site, it was easier to do, but on a fresh build or redesign, timelines often meant some things just wouldn’t work but hopefully you could still navigate pages. With the rise of mobile browsers, the ability for frameworks to solve cross-browser comparability, and the general acceptance that anything beyond trivial interaction required JS, catering to a tiny crowd that didn’t like having it turned on became very unimportant to most. I do agree that graceful degradation to a state that’s still functional is ideal and something I wish had stuck around.

foul 3y ago

Probably it's the generic HN snark in revolt against the modern365 world, but the http/html/js kludge has been so effective and malleable that killed a lot of thriving cyberspaces (and for some it killed dialogue and public opinion entirely). But i'm sure the human race will outlive the web 2/3/4 circus.