Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I Turned Off JavaScript for a Week

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 93 posts

Re: I Turned Off JavaScript for a Week

#61

Post by agumonkey »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #48
agumonkey wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only because Google neglected it. When blogger redesign landed it was exactly what was trendy, heavy js, dynamic layouting. It was slow but at least I thought it was worth the wait / the cost / the latency. A tech demo. Not anymore, I want to read something more than be amazed and don't want to shop for a core i5 to do so and now blogger looks dumb. Google could totally fix it but they had other horses to ride. Maybe…

Neglected? It takes a special amount of skill and a lot of work to screw it up so badly in the first place. The Web is designed to display text by default, and Blogger fails at that.

Yes, neglected. They put resources for the js revamp. It was cute at the time, not anymore, Google surely knows it but doesn't want to invest anything here (for now). They just pushed a huge redesign of G+, supposed to be their flagship, vastly simpler and faster (to the point of making it even less relevant). Blogger gets the remains if anything ever drops.

Re: I Turned Off JavaScript for a Week

#62

Post by iainmerrick »

bojo wrote: post #40
z3t4 wrote: post #24

Sadly JavaScript or "the language of the web" is going towards binary rather then openness. The big sites like Google already obfuscate their code so it's hard to see what it does. I learned JavaScript by viewing other peoples source code, witch was as easy as right clicking and selecting view source. Unless we want more people to disable JavaScript, we need to keep it open source and transparent!

While I understand the intent of your post, don't most people minify (obfuscate) their JS code to reduce bandwidth costs (on both ends, user and company)? Even in todays high bandwidth availability age we still use CDNs and the like to reduce such a cost. That said, it would definitely be nice to see non-minified versions of code we run in our browsers available as open source by the company serving it. It's not like…

Gzip encoding works great to shrink JS (and CSS and HTML). Obfuscation adds almost nothing on top of that.

Dead-code stripping is still useful but you can do that without obfuscating.

Re: I Turned Off JavaScript for a Week

#64

Post by 9mui »

JupiterMoon wrote: post #44
pmlnr wrote: post #17

wired.com, please learn from your own article and don't try to load 22 3rd party javascripts. http://picpaste.com/wired_com-yt7ooXyu.png

I read it with javascript disabled with no problems at all.

I'm afraid, we can't do javascript right but the against movement.

Re: I Turned Off JavaScript for a Week

#65

Post by z3t4 »

bojo wrote: post #40
z3t4 wrote: post #24

Sadly JavaScript or "the language of the web" is going towards binary rather then openness. The big sites like Google already obfuscate their code so it's hard to see what it does. I learned JavaScript by viewing other peoples source code, witch was as easy as right clicking and selecting view source. Unless we want more people to disable JavaScript, we need to keep it open source and transparent!

While I understand the intent of your post, don't most people minify (obfuscate) their JS code to reduce bandwidth costs (on both ends, user and company)? Even in todays high bandwidth availability age we still use CDNs and the like to reduce such a cost. That said, it would definitely be nice to see non-minified versions of code we run in our browsers available as open source by the company serving it. It's not like…

You only save bandwidth the first time the resource is accessed. After that it's loaded from the browser cache! So over time, the band-witch saving by minification is insignificant.

Re: I Turned Off JavaScript for a Week

#66

Post by simoncion »

moonshinefe wrote: post #57
oska wrote: post #50

> and I could browse the web with fewer distractions—all without the sense of guilt that comes with using an ad blocker Never felt the slightest skerrick of guilt for using an ad blocker. Instead I feel mildly virtuous in doing my own small part in helping the idea of an ad-supported internet die.

Just turning off JS doesn't stop flash ads, static ads, video ads before videos play on youtube, etc. as well... so to say the least this author is deluded if he thinks he's getting anything close to an adblocker experience.

> ...this author is deluded if he thinks he's getting anything close to an adblocker experience.

The quote from the author is:

> ...and I could browse the web with fewer distractions—all without the sense of guilt that comes with using an ad blocker

Notice the gulf between your statement and the author's statement.

Re: I Turned Off JavaScript for a Week

#67

Post by simoncion »

z3t4 wrote: post #65
bojo wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I understand the intent of your post, don't most people minify (obfuscate) their JS code to reduce bandwidth costs (on both ends, user and company)? Even in todays high bandwidth availability age we still use CDNs and the like to reduce such a cost. That said, it would definitely be nice to see non-minified versions of code we run in our browsers available as open source by the company serving it. It's not like…

You only save bandwidth the first time the resource is accessed. After that it's loaded from the browser cache! So over time, the band-witch saving by minification is insignificant.

So, the answer to bojo's question is "Yes.".

> After that it's loaded from the browser cache!

Unless the resource changes, the UA's cache is cleared, the file is served with incorrect caching headers, the cache expiry time specified in the resource header is reached, the resource is loaded by a UA that doesn't cache...

Re: I Turned Off JavaScript for a Week

#68

Post by JupiterMoon »

LiquidFlux wrote: post #63
JupiterMoon wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read it with javascript disabled with no problems at all.

Could you read the comments?

Why would I want to?

EDIT Honest question. Since I've been disabling javascript I've not read many comments sections and I've wasted a lot less time.

Re: I Turned Off JavaScript for a Week

#70

Post by dzhiurgis »

bojo wrote: post #40
z3t4 wrote: post #24

Sadly JavaScript or "the language of the web" is going towards binary rather then openness. The big sites like Google already obfuscate their code so it's hard to see what it does. I learned JavaScript by viewing other peoples source code, witch was as easy as right clicking and selecting view source. Unless we want more people to disable JavaScript, we need to keep it open source and transparent!

While I understand the intent of your post, don't most people minify (obfuscate) their JS code to reduce bandwidth costs (on both ends, user and company)? Even in todays high bandwidth availability age we still use CDNs and the like to reduce such a cost. That said, it would definitely be nice to see non-minified versions of code we run in our browsers available as open source by the company serving it. It's not like…

While I do not mind the obfuscation, I do not like that browsers do not give you easy way to access/inspect variables. Or seeing what function names (and parameters) are called.
Post reply on HN