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

Your website should work without JavaScript (2021)

endtimes.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 159 posts

Re: Your website should work without JavaScript (2021)

#101

Post by capitainenemo »

cercatrova wrote: post #84

I used to think this. I even used uMatrix (RIP) to disable all JS. After a while though, it simply wasn't worth it. You'll have a vocal minority on HN of JS disablers, but the truth is most people don't know or care about JavaScript, much less want to disable it. So, it's really not worth catering to this 0.2% or even 1% of people as the article cites. There are just too many interesting things JS can do. I've been p…

I don't know much about your particular use case, but in my experience implementing an animation in CSS results in a smoother animation with better GL acceleration in the browser resulting in a lot less CPU/battery consumption.

So. There's that.

But otherwise I'm broadly in agreement. If you're making an online application, it pretty much requires JS. Not so much for CRUD db form apps/forums/blogs/wikis etc.

Re: Your website should work without JavaScript (2021)

#102

Post by thex10 »

sylware wrote: post #99

The real pertinent reason to regulate and to get noscript/basic (x)html web portals (at least on "critical" online services) is that "javascript" requires a grotesquely and absurdely massive and complex web engine, including its SDK. The only web engines today are blink/geeko, financed by google(vanguard/blackrock), and webkit financed by apple(vanguard/blackrock). They are all written using c++ which has also a grot…

> I am personally seeing lawyers to seek noscript/basic (x)html interoperability on "critical online services".

What is your personal incentive to do this beyond the ideological viewpoint of not being beholden to big tech?

For the record I’m in agreement with your stance, I’m just curious about this.

Re: Your website should work without JavaScript (2021)

#103

Post by capitainenemo »

2b3a51 wrote: post #90
TimPC wrote: post #58

Why you should double your workload in designing a website to support 2 in 1000 users. By said no PM ever.

Commercial site, personal blog, social media &c yes, of course, you are right Sites people use to access vital services: you should be designing Web sites that will work on old broken devices on slow connections. 2‰ of 30 million is 60 000, a stadium full. https://shkspr.mobi/blog/2021/01/the-unreasonable-effectiven...

... also the original article said 1%, so that's really 300 000.

the 0.2% was just the deliberate disabling. The rest were all the stuff documented here:

https://kryogenix.org/code/browser/everyonehasjs.html

Re: Your website should work without JavaScript (2021)

#104

Post by capitainenemo »

chrismorgan wrote: post #21
edfletcher_t137 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I Turned Off JavaScript for a Whole Week and It Was Glorious - Wired 2015" It's not 2015 or 2016 anymore, not even close. We're the better part of a decade moved on. This is not a valid argument any longer. JavaScript is a critical part of the modern web experience. You may not like it, but that doesn't change the fact.

I just read through that article. Of the specific things it mentions, I think Twitter might no longer work without JavaScript, but everything else is true now just as it was then. Nothing has changed. Source: personal experience, as one who blocks JavaScript by default because it makes the web better more than it breaks things. Also very occasional observation of people browsing the web with very similarly-configured…

Twitter removed their non-JS interface but Nitter still supports it just fine.

Re: Your website should work without JavaScript (2021)

#105

Post by charcircuit »

sylware wrote: post #99

The real pertinent reason to regulate and to get noscript/basic (x)html web portals (at least on "critical" online services) is that "javascript" requires a grotesquely and absurdely massive and complex web engine, including its SDK. The only web engines today are blink/geeko, financed by google(vanguard/blackrock), and webkit financed by apple(vanguard/blackrock). They are all written using c++ which has also a grot…

Blink, gecko, and webkit are not javascript engines. Those are v8, spidermonkey, and javascriptcore respectively.

Re: Your website should work without JavaScript (2021)

#106

Post by sylware »

thex10 wrote: post #102
sylware wrote: post #99

The real pertinent reason to regulate and to get noscript/basic (x)html web portals (at least on "critical" online services) is that "javascript" requires a grotesquely and absurdely massive and complex web engine, including its SDK. The only web engines today are blink/geeko, financed by google(vanguard/blackrock), and webkit financed by apple(vanguard/blackrock). They are all written using c++ which has also a grot…

> I am personally seeing lawyers to seek noscript/basic (x)html interoperability on "critical online services". What is your personal incentive to do this beyond the ideological viewpoint of not being beholden to big tech? For the record I’m in agreement with your stance, I’m just curious about this.

My government regulating body in charge of preserving interoperability with small /alternative tech and stability in time, at least for critical online services, is not doing its job.

Was even planing to bootstrap my own small/alternative "tech" from some small/alternative noscript/basic (x)html components. Namely without the 489374392843 devs financed by google or apple...

Not to mention, it is a quasi-monopoly: blink is a fork of webkit, and geeko is kept alive by google (probably as a protection against anti-trust regulation). It is even worse from an "owner" point of view: from a "vanguard/blackrock" point of view, this is monopoly. That would concern the general anti-trust regulating body.

There are certainly way more to that, I am discussing with lawyers what to present to the judge.

Re: Your website should work without JavaScript (2021)

#107

Post by robalni »

cercatrova wrote: post #84

I used to think this. I even used uMatrix (RIP) to disable all JS. After a while though, it simply wasn't worth it. You'll have a vocal minority on HN of JS disablers, but the truth is most people don't know or care about JavaScript, much less want to disable it. So, it's really not worth catering to this 0.2% or even 1% of people as the article cites. There are just too many interesting things JS can do. I've been p…

I don't care how many people there are that care about whether they are running javascript. The problem persists even if 0 people care about it.

The problem is that people are getting abused, even if they don't care about it. They are unknowingly lending their computers to unknown people who use them as their tools by running code on them. My computer is my tool and nobody else's.

If website owners think it's totally fine to run code on my computer when I visit their site without my permission or knowledge, I wonder what they would think if I ran code on their servers without their permission or knowledge. That would be fair. My computer for you and your computer for me.

Re: Your website should work without JavaScript (2021)

#108

Post by mamcx »

TimPC wrote: post #58

Why you should double your workload in designing a website to support 2 in 1000 users. By said no PM ever.

It reduces the workload. Using htmx + tailwindcss means to me I could duplicate all the functionality of a eCommerce backend in mere a week for something that I was, unfinished, doing in vue for almost a year.

And after that?

ZERO EXTRA WORK.

Re: Your website should work without JavaScript (2021)

#109

Post by connordoner »

robalni wrote: post #107
cercatrova wrote: post #84

I used to think this. I even used uMatrix (RIP) to disable all JS. After a while though, it simply wasn't worth it. You'll have a vocal minority on HN of JS disablers, but the truth is most people don't know or care about JavaScript, much less want to disable it. So, it's really not worth catering to this 0.2% or even 1% of people as the article cites. There are just too many interesting things JS can do. I've been p…

I don't care how many people there are that care about whether they are running javascript. The problem persists even if 0 people care about it. The problem is that people are getting abused, even if they don't care about it. They are unknowingly lending their computers to unknown people who use them as their tools by running code on them. My computer is my tool and nobody else's. If website owners think it's totally…

Unless you want to go down the ultra-pedantic route that HTML is markup rather than code, why are you reading HN?

Re: Your website should work without JavaScript (2021)

#110

Post by JakeAl »

recursivedoubts wrote: post #23

I would very much like for HTML to incorporate concepts from htmx (particularly more flexible transclusion) so that more dynamic websites and applications can be built entirely in HTML. JavaScript became popular because HTML stopped moving forward as a hypermedia, focusing instead on client-side features that, while certainly nice, didn't increase the expressive power of the format in terms of hypermedia.

MS had a great solution back in the day with their Dynamic HTML. The anti-MS community opted for what we have been left with instead of adopting what MS came up with. DHTML was pretty awesome.

https://archive.org/details/dynamichtmlrefer00redm

Post reply on HN