Comment on The sheer amount of websites that are completely unusable without JavaScript
A_norny_mousse@feddit.org 1 week agoIf your motivation is to see old html pages, with minimal style
Huh? i just want to see a web page. Usually a news article, i.e. text with few styling elements. In other words, HTML.
For most use cases JS is not required.
well it’s impossible to do them reliably
Huh again? Why?
If you are worried about closed-source js.
Huh? Isn’t it always open, i.e. one can read the script the browser loads if one is so inclined? No, that’s not the point at all. JS increases the likelihood of data mining, by ordes of magnitude. And most addons that block js also block 3rd party requests generally.
Use as much js as you like (most third party stuff is not really up to the web dev anyhow), but the page must always fail gracefully for those who do not like it, or browse the web in some archaic way. An empty page is not an option.
Please also read some of the other (top level) comments here.
fxdave@lemmy.ml 1 week ago
You were completely fine with slow page reloads blinding you when the theme was dark. I’m speaking to those who appreciate modern tech.
But anyways, unfortunately javascript obfuscation is a common thing.
A_norny_mousse@feddit.org 1 week ago
Obfuscation, OK.
Look, I’m willing to have a conversation with you, but you need to address my points first, that is if you want one too.
fxdave@lemmy.ml 1 week ago
I can’t take it seriously because of the noise in your text like “Huh?”. If you like to have a conversation, please be more open next time.
Source code is the code before some kind of transpilation. Obfuscated code is not source code.
I get it, you just need the content. But why would you reload the page when you’re just about to get the next news in the page. Isn’t it better to just update that part?
A_norny_mousse@feddit.org 1 week ago
Why is it “impossible to do them reliably” - without js presumably?