39 ms·
It's a cool historic artifact, but I'd argue a browser without JS support these days is like a text editor without syntax highlighting.
by asystole 3y ago
It's a cool historic artifact, but I'd argue a browser without JS support these days is like a text editor without syntax highlighting.
- anthk 3y agoIf the web needs JS to work even to display non-dynamic content, then the web it's utterly broken.
- bee_rider 3y agoA good number of sites are utterly broken. I remember being able to browse normal sites with JavaScript disabled as late as 2010, but since then I’ve had to downgrade to Firefox+noscript.
- anthk 3y agoDilloNG with the PSP user agent and with the remote CSS disabled works surprisingly fine for lots of sites. For everything else, mpv+yt-dlp for media and gopher://magical.fish under lynx/sacc for news/services.
- bufio 3y agoI can't see the downsides to a lack of JS or syntax highlighting.
- omaranto 3y agoMost of the websites I interact with are either very interactive web apps which have no hope of working without JavaScript or are basically made up of text documents I want to read. It is shocking how much the document-style websites improve if you browse them without JavaScript. People have really put a lot of crap on top of what is basically just a text file.
- bovermyer 3y agoRefreshingly lightweight?
- tenebrisalietum 3y agoor, it's like a document reader with a far lower amount and chance of security issues.