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

A day without JavaScript

sonniesedge.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 412 posts

Re: A day without JavaScript

#291

Post by bphogan »

Touche wrote: post #289
mnm1 wrote: post #242

This is everyday for me. Just whitelist the few sites that actually need it and most of the rest are fine. This should be the default. What do I care if some images don't load or CSS is slightly off? The main content is there. For sites that won't do anything without JS, I can consider whether I want to use them or not. Mostly not. Fuck other people running code unnecessarily, without my permission, on my computer. E…

> Fuck other people running code unnecessarily, without my permission, on my computer. You gave them permission. Actually, you asked them to do it when you sent that GET request to their servers that returned a bunch of HTML that included script tags.

Not really. They gave permission for the initial GET request for the HTML. The rest of the requests were inserted into the document by the programmer and executed by the browser. The browser assumed those links should be fetched automatically and executed. :)

Re: A day without JavaScript

#292

Post by bphogan »

uniclaude wrote: post #121
JepZ wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note: The color-coding is likely to change in future Chrome releases. I am a little surprised to find such an issue in Google software as it is a topic for first semester CS undergraduates ;-)

Wait what? CS students learn color about color blindness now? I really wasn't in the good classes!

I taught a ton of a11y stuff in my intro to web classes. Even did screen reader demos. I wasn't the only one. There are lots of folks teaching this stuff. Not a critical mass, but I'm so thankful it's happening. :)

Re: A day without JavaScript

#293

Post by abritinthebay »

Touche wrote: post #290
ZeroClickOk wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I fully agree. Do you stop to think flash/action script was "obsolete" because all this? and now we have the exact same problems...

flash was obsoleted because 1) iphone didn't support it, 2) iphone didn't support it, 3) iphone didn't support it, and 4) JS replaced the non-DRM use cases (and now even replaced that).

Well that and Flash was a massive vector of security problems.

Plus it wasn't very good on mobile, even when it was supported (ie - on Android it was still bad and never got out of beta anyhow)

Re: A day without JavaScript

#294

Post by abritinthebay »

Fiahil wrote: post #166
uniclaude wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait what? CS students learn color about color blindness now? I really wasn't in the good classes!

I think it's a joke.

I learned that in my 1st year HCI module at University nearly 20 years ago. It shouldn't be a joke. It should be normal.

Re: A day without JavaScript

#295

Post by drdaeman »

z0r wrote: post #287
drdaeman wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

import ReactDOM; const HowQuestion = (text) => { return ( How {text}? ); } const Comment = () => { const text = \ "the year justifies using Turing-complete programs" "to express what could be a simple static text document"; return ; }; const el = document.querySelector("#14507550 .comment"); ReactDOM.render( , el);

thank you for the reminder that it is current year, all too easy to forget!

Sorry, that was actually last year's. This one's should've been a WebAssembly blob.

Re: A day without JavaScript

#296

Post by largehotcoffee »

godshatter wrote: post #196
godinaa wrote: post #29

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…

The NoScript extension is the 5th most downloaded extension for Firefox ( https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/extensions/?sort=us... ). If you want to show a blank screen or a broken website to those users, that's up to you. Some of them may really want to see your site, so they might try to figure out which of the twenty domains they should enable, and which of the thirty they should enable after that one doesn…

Yes, and Firefox is the 3rd of 4th most used browser at less than 10% (which is bad). So the subset of actual Firefox users that use NoScript is absolutely not worth supporting.

Re: A day without JavaScript

#297

Post by SquareWheel »

thinkxl wrote: post #138
Sean1708 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd be very interested to see some proper analysis of the difference in speed between HTML/CSS vs just JS, it seems obvious to me that the former would be much faster but then again I know how often "obvious" things are wrong.

the list of sites on https://hnpwa.com/ vs this https://news.ycombinator.com/

Would you prefer that Hacker News reloaded the page every time you voted on a comment?

Re: A day without JavaScript

#298

Post by Touche »

abritinthebay wrote: post #293
Touche wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

flash was obsoleted because 1) iphone didn't support it, 2) iphone didn't support it, 3) iphone didn't support it, and 4) JS replaced the non-DRM use cases (and now even replaced that).

Well that and Flash was a massive vector of security problems. Plus it wasn't very good on mobile, even when it was supported (ie - on Android it was still bad and never got out of beta anyhow)

I thought it was fine on Android, I played many games on it that worked well even on those old underpowered phones. It was never good, but probably about 0% of flash apps were written that targeted mobile so I wouldn't have the expectation of good.

Re: A day without JavaScript

#299

Post by godshatter »

largehotcoffee wrote: post #296
godshatter wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The NoScript extension is the 5th most downloaded extension for Firefox ( https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/extensions/?sort=us... ). If you want to show a blank screen or a broken website to those users, that's up to you. Some of them may really want to see your site, so they might try to figure out which of the twenty domains they should enable, and which of the thirty they should enable after that one doesn…

Yes, and Firefox is the 3rd of 4th most used browser at less than 10% (which is bad). So the subset of actual Firefox users that use NoScript is absolutely not worth supporting.

Sure, but we're not talking extreme niche here or anything. It was downloaded by over two million users.

Re: A day without JavaScript

#300

Post by Touche »

bphogan wrote: post #291
Touche wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Fuck other people running code unnecessarily, without my permission, on my computer. You gave them permission. Actually, you asked them to do it when you sent that GET request to their servers that returned a bunch of HTML that included script tags.

Not really. They gave permission for the initial GET request for the HTML. The rest of the requests were inserted into the document by the programmer and executed by the browser. The browser assumed those links should be fetched automatically and executed. :)

The rest of the requests were triggered by the browser, not the programmer, because they were part of the initial HTML and the browser follows the HTML spec. The person complaining about it and is technical and knows this, they were under no misconception that they were viewing a document format that doesn't include code execution. Of which I'm having trouble of even thinking of an example, because even Word documents can execute code by default.

If you dislike HTML, then don't use it. Use another format that serves your text-only needs. Gopher is a possibility, just don't click on any HTML files if you're using a web browser though.

Post reply on HN