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

271–280 of 412 posts

Re: A day without JavaScript

#271

Post by textmode »

I have not used Javascript in years. I boot to textmode and use a text-only browser.

There are exceptions when I use JS. When I have to use someone else's computers or manage certain accounts using the www. The later not being by choice.

In the 90's, there was an attempt to allow web developers to run their code on the user's computer via the user's web browser. This was called Java applets.

There was no limit to the pie-in-the-sky promises that developers were making back then. All based around the web browser and Java.

Not surprisingly, Java applets failed. I think there were some security issues. Maybe. Not sure.

Javascript reminds me of Java applets.

I am not sure if there are security issues with Javascript. From discussion surrounding this language, today we are asked to believe there is nothing that cannot be accomplished with a web browser and some Javascript. Unlike Java applets, this time, it is real. I think.

But, as far as I know, I too can do anything I want to do without using Javascript. And without using Java applets. If there are websites that truly require Javascript (see below) in order to access data, I cannot find them.

1. require

Here, "require" means that the data could not be served to the user via any other e.g. more direct mechanism than through a series of steps that includes Javascript being run by a web browser. Here, "require" does not mean the choice by the website owner to use Javascript in this way or a message displayed to users that suggests "Javascript is required". The meaning here refers to technical capabilities not design choice.

Re: A day without JavaScript

#272

Post by user15672 »

linkmotif wrote: post #254
scaryclam wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

- Twitter, is quite literally, a text based feed. There's no reason for this not to work without JS - Netflix would depend on what you're doing. Much of it can work just fine as text, images and forms - Youtube has a lot of text and the videos could be played without JS if they wanted to bother (HTML5 ftw!) - Maps can also work OK without JS (just without the additional stuff, which is fine for progressive enhancemen…

So easy to write this in a comment but none of this is true. Twitter is not a text based feed. If it was, people would still expect it to be iteractive w/o full page reloads. Same goes for all your examples. DHTML happened, and for a reason. It's not going to unhappen.

Wow...just...wow! Look, I don't want to be mean, I understand you believe what you're saying, but, really, just no. You really do not understand how the things you're talking about work. For your own sake, go learn some more before jumping into comment here.

Re: A day without JavaScript

#273

Post by alexseman »

gpderetta wrote: post #169
computerex wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ad blockers are now going in the other direction with non-intrusive ads being shown.

I would be extremely happy to use a JS block that allows non intrusive JS.

Privacy Badger is what you're looking for.

https://www.eff.org/privacybadger

Re: A day without JavaScript

#274

Post by vortico »

I can see the desire to disable JavaScript, but I think it's more useful to disable CSS on most sites. I'd be interested to see this article except without CSS instead of JavaScript.

Re: A day without JavaScript

#275

Post by spookyuser »

danellis wrote: post #270
deanward81 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chrome 59 has a coverage tool built-in: https://developers.google.com/web/updates/2017/04/devtools-r...

Off-topic, but: > Full-page screenshots. Take a screenshot of the entire page, from the top of the viewport to the bottom. I'm surprised to see the Chrome developers not know what 'viewport' means.

Even more off topic but I'm surprised this isn't a consumer feature. There are so many sketchy chrome extensions that try and do this.

Re: A day without JavaScript

#276

Post by megous »

sametmax wrote: post #260
megous wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Programming is mostly creating functions and interfaces to decompose problems into reusable parts where reuse makes sense. Nothing wrong with creating a simple function for making XMLHttpRequests or for fetch API. Most of the time there's no need for the level of generality of jQuery interfaces. Just by making a function you're not creating a library. Sometimes I find DOM API verbose too. Nevertheless the fix does no…

> it may be enough to extend the HTMLElement prototype a bit You lost me here. Anybody extending standard objects cannot be taken seriously.

Do you realize JavaScript is a prototype based programming language? It is a major and very useful feature of the language. There's no reason not to use it. There are some things to be careful about with interop if you need it, but that's it.

Re: A day without JavaScript

#277

Post by ZeroClickOk »

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…

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

Re: A day without JavaScript

#278

Post by Fifer82 »

juandazapata wrote: post #136
JepZ wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really an answer to your question, but this might be useful: http://youmightnotneedjquery.com

Good luck supporting old android browsers, IE and dealing with the inconsistencies between browsers. It only takes one look at the jQuery source code to understand why it's not a good idea to "roll your own jQuery".

Simply don't target old browsers. If people don't use JS, or don't have a modern browser, feel free to go elsewhere. I don't target edge cases as I don't get paid to.

Re: A day without JavaScript

#280

Post by Fifer82 »

linkmotif wrote: post #123
jaclaz wrote: post #120

If I may, it seems to me like there are several possible points of discussion: 1) Javascript is bad (vs. Javascript is good and variations thereof) 2) The use a lot of websites make of Javascript is overcomplex, gratuitious, uncalled for, intrusive, etc. 3) Sites should provide some (even minimal) functionality to people browsing them without Javascript #1 is largely a matter of personal opinions #2 is a known, unden…

I simply will not spend time tailoring a nascent or even mature product to 0.0001% or whatever minscule percentage of the population turns off JS. If you turn off JS, you get a blank screen. Why should I accommodate your cohort? Why write unit tests for someone who takes a standardish client with above 1% market share and does something completely unstandard with it?

I agree, maybe kids at Google get paid big wedges for this, I don't
Post reply on HN