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

Why I'm turning JavaScript off by default

tommorris.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 79 posts

Re: Why I'm turning JavaScript off by default

#61

Post by marrs »

weland wrote: post #29
mikro2nd wrote: post #15

I am much of the same mind as the author, and for a very long time my NoScript was configured to disallow all JS by default. Sadly things have reached the point where this is just not realistic anymore. Too many websites just fail to work altogether, and I was spending way too much time whitelisting sites. And honestly, who has the time to check up on what each and every one of those is doing with their crappy JavaSc…

> Sadly things have reached the point where this is just not realistic anymore. Too many websites just fail to work altogether, and I was spending way too much time whitelisting sites. I have a very simple solution to this: website breaks and has no legitimate reason for using scripts? Good bye website. I don't do web development, so worst case scenario is website breaks so I get my ass back to work sooner. I know on…

  I have a very simple solution to this: website breaks and has no legitimate reason for using scripts? Good bye website.
This works quite well for me as well. I found this was the case back when I was using Linux before Firefox was popular, and it's still the case when I use my Windows phone now.

I think there is still hope.

The proliferation of mobile devices now means that cross-browser testing is nigh-on impossible, so this makes progressive enhancement more important now than ever.

The improvements to CSS have made it possible to build a lot of cool functionality straight into the website.

Re: Why I'm turning JavaScript off by default

#62

Post by tommorris »

liviu wrote: post #44
tommorris wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The first thing that would fail is the ability to login to his own site, which uses Mozilla Persona and requires JavaScript. That's why I'd whitelist my own site. And the only person who that would fail for is me because I'm the only person who can post to my own site. :)

Yeah, sure.. what about the twitter button from articles or jQuery library included in your pages?

The jQuery is so I can progressively enhance the post form. Which you can't see unless you are me.

And the Twitter button doesn't use JavaScript. Very much intentionally.

Also if you think I'm being hypocritical by using JavaScript a tiny amount on my site while also decrying it's overuse, then you've failed at reading comprehension.

Re: Why I'm turning JavaScript off by default

#63

Post by macspoofing »

marrs wrote: post #60
macspoofing wrote: post #47

The entire posts reads like an old man complaining about kids on his lawn. The justification is just .. dumb. First because the debate is over. People want to build web apps, and they want to consume web apps. You can certainly stay on the side-lines, complain and yearn for the 90s and those glorious days of geocities and 'proper' web pages, but the world has moved on. Second, there is this arbitrary expectation of w…

The justification is just .. dumb. Arrogant, unnecessary opening. Your reasons had better be good. First because the debate is over. Clearly it isn't. People want to build web apps, and they want to consume web apps. "People" don't want to build anything; it's devs who want to do that. People want to do all kinds of things on the web. Often, they want to spend as little time on your site as possible so they can get b…

>"People" don't want to build anything; it's devs who want to do that.

+1 for pedantry. Apparently devs aren't people, they are "people" (or is it the other way around).

>People want to do all kinds of things on the web.

That's right. They want to do all kinds of things on it. They want to hang out on facebook, check gmail, keep track of twitter feed, write documents in google docs, and upload to flickr. All those "web sites" really stretch the original vision of what HTML was supposed to be, and what the author is arguing for. They are all JavaScript heavy not because Devs love JavaScript (it's a shitty language), but because it's the only way to provide a proper experience for the end-users.

>We had the same debate with Flash.

We didn't have the same 'debate', because there's no debate. End-users aren't complaining about the current state of the web. Devs aren't complaining either. There's no movement to push the web in the other direction. Users, developers and all major internet corporations are pretty much aligned. Most of the focus is on things like privacy, not on reducing the use of JavaScritpt.

>There is no binary here, it's a continuum

Actually I purposely used "application" because I wanted to reinforce the point that some things that run in the browser are applications, not pages, not marked up documents, applications. Furthermore those web applications may not necessarily require javascript - that's how they are written today, that's not how they were written yesterday. If you want to go into a debate as to what the difference between a 'web site' and a 'web app' is, I'd say there's a continuum there, but I focused on pure "web applications".

>The kind of web app you're talking about is the kind of site that would require JS and the kind of site that the author would whitelist.

Are you sure about that?

Re: Why I'm turning JavaScript off by default

#64

Post by singular »

tommorris wrote: post #45
singular wrote: post #36

This smells a bit like linkbait to me (and amusingly similar to some of the items in the 4chan parody not so long ago.) I think this would be better as a blacklist. I definitely don't find as much abuse as is claimed, but it does happen occasionally. I don't want to return to a world where I have to refresh my email window to receive new email, or a world where collaborative google docs aren't possible or the whole p…

"Linkbait". I wrote a post on my own fucking blog on Friday. I was quite drunk at the time after a long week of working on web stuff. Then someone else posted it on Hacker News. Any chance I could write stuff on my personal blog in the future without being accused of clickbaiting or linkbaiting or whatever?

Actually - "This smells a bit like linkbait to me"

I don't think that quite qualifies as personally accusing you of intentionally posting linkbait to HN.

There are plenty of articles submitted here by people who aren't the author that are in fact intentionally linkbait. I don't know where else you advertised this post, etc. so you not having posted it doesn't mean it wasn't linkbait (I believe you that it wasn't, fine.)

So even though it was you venting after a[n inferred] tough week, then the submitter might have intended it as clickbait for karma purposes. So I didn't actually necessarily direct that comment at you.

Also keep in mind if you write on a public blog, there's always the possibility that people will express an opinion you find disagreeable somewhere about it, probably less politely elsewhere (especially in the flamebait-attracting area of programming languages.)

If I wrote a blog post, entirely for myself entitled 'why I despise Windows 7 and wish we could go back to the wonder days of ME', I wouldn't be surprised if it resulted in people suggesting it was linkbait if it was later posted to a news site (other than it was getting attention, of course :)

Having said all that I should apologise, I didn't mean it as a personal attack (though I do, respectfully, disagree with your article), as usual text is a dreadful medium for expressing these things.

Re: Why I'm turning JavaScript off by default

#65

Post by glurgann »

tommorris wrote: post #14
staticelf wrote: post #12

How would the author face new standards like Websockets and Server-Sent Events? Those standards requires some kind of client scripting. As a previous user has stated, the use of javascript is not the problem. It's the abuse of it.

Not use them unless absolutely necessary. And not use websites that have them unless absolutely necessary.

Yawn Seems like a pretty boring and uninteresting web.

Re: Why I'm turning JavaScript off by default

#66

Post by glurgann »

tommorris wrote: post #56
daemonk wrote: post #37

You are against pointless UI decisions spurred on by javascript. That doesn't mean all UI decisions are pointless. Instead of advocating getting rid of javascript, perhaps it is more sensible to advocate using javascript reasonably. I don't think the all or nothing mentality applies here.

Make something compelling. Build it non-crappily. Congratulations, you'll get on the whitelist. Fill my browser with pseudo-popups, craptastic infinite scrolling and other awful things and you won't.

Seems somewhat like a double standard. You can't use JavaScript, until you can.

"Compelling." "Built non-crappily."

Re: Why I'm turning JavaScript off by default

#67

Post by liviu »

tommorris wrote: post #62
liviu wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, sure.. what about the twitter button from articles or jQuery library included in your pages?

The jQuery is so I can progressively enhance the post form. Which you can't see unless you are me. And the Twitter button doesn't use JavaScript. Very much intentionally. Also if you think I'm being hypocritical by using JavaScript a tiny amount on my site while also decrying it's overuse, then you've failed at reading comprehension.

So, you admit that you are loading a huge javascript library even if you visitors don't need it.

And you tell others that their browser loads lots of unneeded/unwanted scripts? Are you serious?

Re: Why I'm turning JavaScript off by default

#68

Post by tommorris »

glurgann wrote: post #66
tommorris wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Make something compelling. Build it non-crappily. Congratulations, you'll get on the whitelist. Fill my browser with pseudo-popups, craptastic infinite scrolling and other awful things and you won't.

Seems somewhat like a double standard. You can't use JavaScript, until you can. "Compelling." "Built non-crappily."

You can't drive a car. Until you can.

Re: Why I'm turning JavaScript off by default

#69

Post by dictum »

spb wrote: post #40

Everything about this article reads like it was written in 2011. "elements that aren’t div exist primarily as a nostalgic throwback to a gentler era." Um, have you looked at the HTML5 spec lately? Or used Bootstrap? Or any other significant CSS framework developed in the last 2 years? It's div/span class adornments for structure that's on its way out. And this, incidentally, is why NoScript is a terrible idea: the we…

> JavaScript polyfills to support new baseline HTML/CSS features are a necessity for sustainable future-and-past-proof development in the modern Web ecosystem

I'd wager that most people who disable Javascript are using a modern browser with a good blocklist/whitelist system, e.g. Firefox with NoScript.

For instance, if your website needs Flexbox, your CSS will work even on Firefox 25 with NoScript. Flexbox won't work on IE8 with JS off, but that's honestly OK. Progressive enhancement will still allow the visitor to read the content and interact with the page, the only issue is that the elements won't be positioned as intended by the designer. If you're willing to invest more time to support even IE8 with JS off, you could use Sass to more or less replicate Flexbox with floats etc.

Usually, until a CSS/HTML feature is supported by at least two major browsers, it's not a good idea to use it in production.

Re: Why I'm turning JavaScript off by default

#70

Post by tommorris »

liviu wrote: post #67
tommorris wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The jQuery is so I can progressively enhance the post form. Which you can't see unless you are me. And the Twitter button doesn't use JavaScript. Very much intentionally. Also if you think I'm being hypocritical by using JavaScript a tiny amount on my site while also decrying it's overuse, then you've failed at reading comprehension.

So, you admit that you are loading a huge javascript library even if you visitors don't need it. And you tell others that their browser loads lots of unneeded/unwanted scripts? Are you serious?

No, I'm both a lazy and fallible human being who hasn't gotten around to fixing it. I'm not exempting myself from my own critique.
Post reply on HN