Usage of javascript as a tool for building web properties is only going to keep increasing, and grumbling about it doesn't solve anything.
This phrase gave me pause (why not just say "making wesbites"?), but I think I have a handle on what it implies.
"Making websites" is what you do when your main deliverable is content. Maybe you throw in some javascript for a little aesthetic kick or some nice features, but if a user comes to your website with javascript disabled, your goal is to still get the content to them.
"Building web properties" is what you do when your main deliverable is non-content: ad clicks, tracking, etc. Whatever content you offer on the site is just a honeypot. If a user comes to your website with javascript disabled, your goal is to intentionally turn them away because they've refused the delivery of your non-content.
You paint a stark dichotomy between static websites and javascript powered "content honeypots". There are millions of web apps out there that are not the latter, and use javascript to provide real value.
I think it's fair to expect to be able to see something without JavaScript, even if it's not formatted correctly or missing fonts or whatever. I disable JS by default for performance reasons, not just because of tracking.
I fully agree the world would be a better place if websites that primarily deliver text did do so. But I'm not convinced it is reasonable to expect it.
As a demographic, javascript disablers are a small minority. Additionally, they have other options for meeting many of their needs (ad blockers, privacy extensions, etc).
So that there can be a nice message 'This website requires JavaScript to operate.".
People who want to apologize for whatever bad shit is in the world always like to complain about complainers, sheesh. What does that solve?
* The available tech stacks and tools for building and iterating on an online magazine with a rich UX that works on a variety of devices
* The skillsets of the development team
* The trends in app development (such as single page apps, which do offer certain advantages)
* The propoprtion of people who disable javascript, especially in the target demographic (probably quite small)
* Project budget
* The desired features for the current and future versions of the project
And so on. Of course, it would be much better to fall back to just displaying the text. But it isn't completely obvious that, in all cases, it is worth whatever additional cost to do so. Outside of the HN-bubble, there are very, very few people who disable javascript.
Sure, have a long discussion about all the complex challenges and even acknowledge (when it's true) that some stupid shit can get locked-in. Just don't try to deny that it's stupid.
There's tons of examples of things in computers that are fundamentally tragically stupid but got locked in and we have to just accept them. We're not yet at that point with Javascript-lock-in, but maybe we're on that path. But even if the situation is hopeless, it's still stupid. It only makes it harder for people to make sense of things if you use excuses to try to deny the stupidity of stupid situations.
The vast majority of people (more than 99%) don't disable javascript, so from the perspective of the key decision makers (project leads, managers, CTOs, etc), it's a complete non-issue. They consider the usage/non-usage of javascript to be largely irrelevant.
Just accept saying "yeah, it's idiotic that Javascript is needed in X framework just to show text, but it's not a priority for most people to fix it" instead of trying to say that it isn't a shitty bug.
It's a shitty bug that comes from a stupid bad design, but you can get away with it these days because it affects only a minority of people in practice. That's the simple truth here.