A day without JavaScript • Hacker News Board

Re: A day without JavaScript

#51

Post by onion2k » Wed, Jun 07, 2017, 12:21 PM UTC

scottmf wrote: post #20

It's 2017. All modern browsers support JS and it's no longer reasonable to expect all websites to work very well without it.

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 if it doesn't work for them, so it's entirely up the developers to build something the users want. Talking about web applications is silly. For a public-facing website though, I would expect it to at least work without JS even if it doesn't necessarily present as good an experience as it would with JS (which is nothing new, it's just progressive enhancement). The problem is web sites that present an essentially a meaningless page (blank, no content, populated but broken, etc) to users who have JS disabled. That's where work needs to be done.

Re: A day without JavaScript

#52

Post by nerdponx » Wed, Jun 07, 2017, 12:22 PM UTC

digi_owl wrote: post #49

FLUX-YOU wrote: post #36

>Verdict: Cartography catastrophe. As much as I hate JavaScript, Google Maps gets a pass. I'm pretty sure the code behind it is thoroughly tested. We can just suck it up and turn JavaScript on for one of the most useful tools from the internet -- how hard is it to find something that whitelists domains to run JS anyway?

Firefox has Noscript, and perhaps another tool i forget the name of (never tested it). Not sure if there is anything similar for Chrome (and the various offshots/rebrands) or Edge, never mind IE or Safari.

uBlock Matrix has very fine whitelisting controls.

Re: A day without JavaScript

#53

Post by douche » Wed, Jun 07, 2017, 12:23 PM UTC

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #16

russdpale wrote: post #6

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.

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.

Re: A day without JavaScript

#54

Post by nerdponx » Wed, Jun 07, 2017, 12:24 PM UTC

TeMPOraL wrote: post #34

nigma wrote: post #23

I turned off JavaScript and Cookies for all sites a few months ago and only whitelist (or open in another Chrome profile) when they refuse to display or need an authenticated session. There are some sites that require JS to render, but the great thing is that majority of pages I visit work just fine as plain html/css. In general I feel less distraction from popups, overlays, ads, etc.

I use uMatrix as a substitute for NoScript + uBlock, and while it's a pain to get some sites working manually without bulk-enabling everything on them, I'm mostly happy about it, and the web looks better for me.

I use Noscript and uBlock Matrix together. It's a little annoying to have to double-whitelist pages, but they offer some non-overlapping functionality. uBM has finer whitelisting control, while NS has finer control (and better visibility) over specific kinds of objects on the page.

However, neither offers a UI for whitelisting specific scripts, which I see as an important feature in the Year of the CDN. I think NS has that feature but it's hidden away in the preferences.

Re: A day without JavaScript

#55

Post by hobs » Wed, Jun 07, 2017, 12:24 PM UTC

VMG wrote: post #38

> 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.

Naw, I will keep running noscript and blocking script by default.

If your site doesn't work, I don't care, I will go to a different one.

I may be the minority now, and while there is some great use of js out there; most of it is bloated, slow, insecure, and often privacy destroying.

Re: A day without JavaScript

#56

Post by stupidcar » Wed, Jun 07, 2017, 12:25 PM UTC

Looking forward to the author's follow up: "A day without a CPU". I am sick of lazy, profligate coders assuming that my computer is a von Neumann machine. And that just because I run their software, I am happy with it spending billions of my CPU cycles. How did we, as an industry, get to this point!?

Re: A day without JavaScript

#57

Post by scaryclam » Wed, Jun 07, 2017, 12:26 PM UTC

scottmf wrote: post #20

It's 2017. All modern browsers support JS and it's no longer reasonable to expect all websites to work very well without it.

It's 2017 and we should be over this "but it works on my machine!" attitude. It's completely reasonable to expect text and images to render without the need for the extra fluff.

Re: A day without JavaScript

#58

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Jun 07, 2017, 12:27 PM UTC

pharrlax wrote: post #44

sametmax wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah. Except you need to do Ajax and fetch doesn't cut it. So new lib. And manipulate the dom with something better then the browser API or you loose your mind. So new lib. Then normalize browser events. Oh wait, you can do that manually. But you are writing a new lib. Eventually the code will grow to be the size of jQuery anyway. Only not as well tested, documented and cached.

Also, vast majority of users will have a cached copy of jQuery from Google CDN already. Now bundling it with the rest of your JS, that's indeed a mistake.

[deleted]

Re: A day without JavaScript

#59

Post by pmlnr » Wed, Jun 07, 2017, 12:27 PM UTC

VMG wrote: post #38

> 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.

> Browsers are JS runtimes now. Get over it.

Sure, dude, ignore anyone without a machine that can run MBs of JS within a reasonable time.

Re: A day without JavaScript

#60

Post by madsbuch » Wed, Jun 07, 2017, 12:27 PM UTC

Simplicity matters, correct:

What is simplest: A full website in Elm, or a website developed in a plethora of HTML, CSS each with at least a handful of libraries?

Well, Elm needs javascript..

All in all: there is not need to be religious about the tech stack.