91–100 of 412 posts
My current off-work project is a web application, that is built with Elixir. I've written 0 lines of JS. It feels really good. This is my way of internalizing some of the points made here[0]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All modern browsers support JS While that's true it's not reasonable to assume the user has JS enabled. Ad-blocking plugins that also block JS are increasingly common. and it's no longer reasonable to expect all websites to work very well without it. The question should be "what does work very well" actually mean? For a closed application that requires the user to log in I don't really care. Users won't use the app i…
> That's where work needs to be done. Why? Instead of building for 0.5% of users that can just enable JavaScript , why shouldn't I invest the time into building a new feature, writing more unit tests, or writing an app for Windows Phone?
One thing to consider is that at larger companies, we already have a difficult enough time testing all of our site with JavaScript enabled. Netflix building a version that works without JavaScript is like asking them to build a second website, especially from a QA perspective. When you look at your users and find that .5% of them are not running JavaScript, how do you justify spending the money for that few of people…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What about power consumption as another valid argument? Your battery will last longer without Javascript.
It will last even longer without CSS
> For me it’s a matter of elegance and simplicity over unnecessary complexity. Simplicity is having one place where the DOM is created and managed, and optimizing for the 99% use case. Complexity is splitting up DOM rendering over two networked systems for servicing a 1% use case. Browsers are JS runtimes now. Get over it.
One thing to consider is that at larger companies, we already have a difficult enough time testing all of our site with JavaScript enabled. Netflix building a version that works without JavaScript is like asking them to build a second website, especially from a QA perspective. When you look at your users and find that .5% of them are not running JavaScript, how do you justify spending the money for that few of people…
https://mikegerwitz.com/talks/sapsf.pdf (slide 60 / pg 115, "The Web---Mitigations & Anonymity").
There's a bunch of stuff before that slide that's mitigated by JS, including things like ultrasound cross-device tracking and hardware fingerprinting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not unreasonable to expect hyperlinks or images to work without JS. Fancier stuff sure, but basic navigation through a content only site should be functional without it. This is what HTML does and you have to be profoundly lazy to screw that up.
My favorite pet peeve is JS links, that aren't actually links, but spans or divs with click handlers, so there's no way to right-click->open in new tab or ctrl-click->open in new tab. It's like intentionally doing something that is harder, and works shittier; I don't get it.
I generally agree with what he is saying, but the web has moved beyond the point where its reasonable to expect websites to have JS fallbacks. It is just too prominent now a days. I've always been a JS hater, though I have to code it frequently.. However, with that said I find the arguments against the language becoming more and more obsolete as the years go on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It will last even longer without CSS
And most websites that work without JS also work fine without CSS. Almost like a pattern that can be found in properly built websites.