5 ms·

>If your website doesn't work with NoScript turned on, I won't utilize it. You're definitely in the minority then, most users don't even know what javascript i

>If your website doesn't work with NoScript turned on, I won't utilize it. You're definitely in the minority then, most users don't even know what javascript is let alone NoScript. I find it ridiculous that people are arguing against javascript, we're using a computer and not allowing it to run code.

mercer 12y ago
I was, and am, mostly on the side that argues that client-side javascript support can be assumed to such a degree that it can safely be considered requirement in a lot of cases. However, I do have some reservations of a more 'ideological' nature when it comes to requiring javascript when it isn't strictly necessary. I still believe one of the most powerful things about the web is the (relative) simplicity of the request/response server-side-rendering approach. There are so many ways in which a web page can be consumed (scraped, read-later-tools, etc.), within 'fair' boundaries of course. And this often falls apart because of client-side javascript. This is fine when it concerns a web-app that is specifically made for browsers (where ideally there's also a public-facing API). But for most other things it should not be necessary, and I believe it harms the possibilities of the open web. And quite often I find that it deceases the usability in general (back-button breakage, etc.). Of course, my ideal solution is both server- and client-side support, used appropriately, through something like React or PhantomJS.
- EGreg 12y ago
  I'd be curious what you think of this: http://platform.qbix.com/guide/pages http://platform.qbix.com/guide/pages
userbinator 12y ago
we're using a computer and not allowing it to run code. ...from sources which some people find uncomfortable to be blindly trusting. From a security perspective, it's a huge attack vector - the majority of browser exploits require JS to work. Even if it's sandboxed, there's also the annoyance aspect; scripts can consume CPU and do all sorts of irritating things like breaking the back button and seizure-inducing animations.
- tvararu 12y ago
  > seizure-inducing animations You don't need JavaScript for that. div { animation: seizure 16.6ms infinite alternate; } @keyframes seizure { 0% { background: black; } 100% { background: white; } }

mercer 12y ago

I was, and am, mostly on the side that argues that client-side javascript support can be assumed to such a degree that it can safely be considered requirement in a lot of cases. However, I do have some reservations of a more 'ideological' nature when it comes to requiring javascript when it isn't strictly necessary. I still believe one of the most powerful things about the web is the (relative) simplicity of the request/response server-side-rendering approach. There are so many ways in which a web page can be consumed (scraped, read-later-tools, etc.), within 'fair' boundaries of course. And this often falls apart because of client-side javascript. This is fine when it concerns a web-app that is specifically made for browsers (where ideally there's also a public-facing API). But for most other things it should not be necessary, and I believe it harms the possibilities of the open web. And quite often I find that it deceases the usability in general (back-button breakage, etc.). Of course, my ideal solution is both server- and client-side support, used appropriately, through something like React or PhantomJS.

EGreg 12y ago
I'd be curious what you think of this: http://platform.qbix.com/guide/pages http://platform.qbix.com/guide/pages

userbinator 12y ago

we're using a computer and not allowing it to run code. ...from sources which some people find uncomfortable to be blindly trusting. From a security perspective, it's a huge attack vector - the majority of browser exploits require JS to work. Even if it's sandboxed, there's also the annoyance aspect; scripts can consume CPU and do all sorts of irritating things like breaking the back button and seizure-inducing animations.

tvararu 12y ago
> seizure-inducing animations You don't need JavaScript for that. div { animation: seizure 16.6ms infinite alternate; } @keyframes seizure { 0% { background: black; } 100% { background: white; } }