On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 04:54:43PM -0500, Nick Sabalausky wrote: > On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 12:57:43 -0800 > "H. S. Teoh" <[email protected]> wrote: [...] > > Heh. I used to browse with no JS. But due to the annoying bandwagon > > jumping trend that is a common pathology in people involved with > > computers, > > Very well-put :) I've long been convinced that most people in > computers should be exiled from the industry and sent to the fashion > industry instead, because clearly that's where they truly belong. Too > damn many fashion-folk in computing these days. > > > more and more websites are starting to depend on JS and are mostly > > (or completely) dysfunctional without JS. So I grudgingly turned it > > back on. > > > > Usually if something doesn't work without JS, or on FF2, then I decide > that it isn't worth my attention anyway (and it usually isn't) and I > leave. In the rare cases when I do unfortunately need to use the site > (ex: BitBucket and GitHub), then I suffer through Opera 10 (the last > version of Opera, and indeed the last major web browser period, to > support a vaguely-native skin). [...]
I don't have a problem with websites that use JS *when it's needed*, and *to the extent it's needed*. The problem is, many sites use JS needlessly. And sites that do need JS use it *relentlessly*, beyond necessity. Just because they need JS for *some* particular feature, they decide to go all-out and use JS for *everything*, making things that don't technically need JS, not work without it. Worse, some use JS maliciously, like to repeatedly load an ad-related link in the background to spam their click through count (or whatever it is these days that people are obsessed with). Or soak up memory like water for no apparent purpose, just because they can. T -- Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it. -- Brian W. Kernighan
