I'm irritated by the loading screen and the enormous list of JavaScript pulled in. That's a simple static page using a few css animations. Is adding bloat considered "modern webdesign"?
I mean, you could also have it as a helper function in your project but that decreases the re-usability to copy-pasting across projects.
In the end, effective or not, I can see it as an attempt on reducing bloat. I see that many don't agree, but I'm afraid they don't take into account the constraints imposed by sending code to the clients rather than a binary.
1) Use a monolithic library like lodash
2) Use a library for each function (note that lodash can also be used in this way but we are already far off-topic)
3) Inline these small functions.
So a website loading lots of monolithic libraries and using JS for everything is actually the opposite extreme for what caused that drama. If I'm wrong or irrelevant, please tell me how instead of down-voting please because I sincerely don't see how. Thank you.
Why, did you have to count the JavaScript scripts and/or volume? On a web browser JS loading is usually transparent, unless one opens the developer tools.
So, either the page was slow for you (a legitimate concern, but the same volume could be matched with 1-2 image assets, not particularly a JS issue), or there's absolutely no reason to care how many JS it loads -- especially given that it's a useful open source project to provide people with packages for Qt.