В 16:23 +0100 на 31.10.2012 (ср), [email protected] написа: > Spare the lecture.
I wasn't really lecturing. You asked some questions I've answered them from my perspective. > what is the REAL issue at hand? Increasingly large programs written in JavaScript. In addition: * those JavaScript programs are proprietary software 95-99% of the time * those JavaScript programs are bloating the browser or inconvenient for some users * those JavaScript programs are badly written. Because of the easy access everyone can be a "programmer" now. The problem is the quality, not the access to everyone. See previous. * a user is free to browse however he/she wants no matter who and why paid for "experience" in a website or developed it. If a user wants he/she will turn off this "experience" and I don't see what is the problem with that and why the website developer or investor or whomever should care. They can't force users to read a website the way they want it, if it inconvenient. * having the code of a JavaScript program does not mean you can legally use it. By definition (copyrights law) if this code does not have copyright or license notices its authors have full copyright, so it is proprietary software. What a neat "open source" feature ;) * reporting a bug/feature request/disable a feature request is not a sane option for websites in my opinion. I doubt anybody will answer to such requests. Users are on the mercy of the website developer or owner. This is a feature of proprietary software. Are those enough? > I say this becuase if you use the jQuery framework to code JavaScript, and > stick to using the built in features (like .addClass for example), there is > nothing stopping you from looking at the source code at > http://code.jquery.com/jquery.js and finding out what addClass actually does. I've said I am excluding free software JavaScript libraries. They are free. There is no issue with them from free software point of view. They can still be badly written and bloat the browser, though. > It actually benefits the tin foil hat crowd if sites use a JS framework due > to the functions having documentation. As a person having experience in website development I would say that someone who avoids JavaScript frameworks is insane to try to match all browser differences by hand. This is not the issue. > Turning off JavaScript entirely? I remember how websites were in 1996/1997 > and I really don't want to return to those archaic dark ages. Nobody forces you to stop your JavaScript engine. It is your choice as a user to browse how you find it useful. I don't get it why do you have an issue with the option for everyone else to stop JavaScript in their browsers and their computers. The default for that option should be what the majority (of the users of a browser) demands. If the trend turns in the other direction and the option is off by default, you will have to live with it. If a website is well styled with CSS I don't see how turning off JavaScript will affect you. > Of course this thread is turning into another one of those user vs developer > This would always be one of the issues, if not the main one, when it comes to free software.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
