I routinely use the fast JS switcher extension to turn off javascript on any site that does any number of irritating things (popups, autoplay videos, etc.) If those sites don’t work any more, then I just never visit them again. Their loss.
I think it's important to make this distinction. A lot of websites don't need the JavaScript they ship with to present the material the users want. I agree those websites should work without JavaScript.
However, you can't expect actual web applications to do this.
Examples
- https://www.audiotool.com/app/ (sign in required; demo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvIu_R8bmdA)
- https://human.biodigital.com/signin.html (sign in required; demo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dW4JSMlBhWQ)
Other more commonly know examples
- Most of Google Drive offerings
- Google Analytics control panel
- Twitch
I see this confusion a lot when this topic is discussed on HackerNews.
The point is, I currently exist in a world where I randomly shut off all javascript on websites, and it’s a happy world. Personally, I’d be tickled pink if it was a built-in browser feature (and if it forced web devs to be more responsible? Bonus!)
Example: Build a usable decent image editor that allows you to preview your changes without the page refreshing or redownload an entirely new image (therefore using even more data).
Example 2: Make a playable 3D game
Example 3: Make a spreadsheet web app
The list goes on. Some things can of course be done without JavaScript but tons of ideas would not only be infeasible to develop, they'd be a usability nightmare.
I do it every day, and there’s absolutely no reason that progressive enhancement should be ignored today, except that fromt-end devs have forgotten how.
> Webapps can be implemented just fine without Javascript; I’ve been doing it for years.
You never addressed any of the examples, so I don't see why it's wrong to assume you believe that the listed applications can be implemented, in the browser, without JavaScript.
You flat out rejected the idea.
> How do you think webapps were written before React came along?
Jquery / Prototype / ExtJS, and others where written in Flash or Java.
I think it's fine to want parts of the internet to work without JavaScript or having any programming language involved. I highly suggest you checkout IPLD[0]. I've always thought that having a graph browser, much like the original intent of www may of been when Tim Berners-Lee wrote the original web browser.
It would be fascinating if the entire internet functioned as workers extending the graph that is the internet. Web applications adding to the graph, while web browser, walked through it. There is a lot to be imagined. I think there is room for both applications and data to exists together.
[0] https://ipld.io/
This everything-is-a-website mentality is a disaster for privacy, security, and the future of decentralized general-purpose computing.
- Convenience of just going to a site and not installing anything.
- Cross platform, if you have a browser most web apps will work.
- Being relatively certain that by just visiting a web app you're not going to end up with malware or other unwanted software
- Being able to access your app from other locations without admin access.
- Updates are ready and available instantly
There are of course many many more benefits.
I get that not everything has to be a web app but it's disingenuous to imply that they have no use cases.
We still don't have a reasonably easy way to write cross-platform applications (Mac/Win/Lin/Phone) in a native-first language. The reason JS has taken off is because it filled a rather HUGE hole.
If there is a chance that is changing, let us know, but right now, the hole isn't being filled with anything else.
The point is to remove the need to install things.
> security
An image editor that runs entirely in the browser and only has sandboxed access to open and save dialogs is more secure by miles than running a random .msi installer.
2) what you propose is completely different from the proposal in the link. I’d be ok with a JS-off-by-default world (or a cookie-off-by-default too!!) but having a limit on file size is just… miopic.
Your first point misses the argument. It’s not that you should support everything with JS disabled; you should, however, support a subset of your interaction as a fallback. Yeah, users don’t get offline mode or whizzy ajax updates, but you can absolutely find a way to work, in nearly all apps. And it isn’t that hard.
The fact that so many people believe this is impossible is an indication of how low the front-end development bar has fallen. This is why we have webpages that take 10MB of JS to render 300k of text.
Who is asking you do to this? I have not had a single request -- ever -- in 15 years of web development. Hey more power to you if you want to disable JS, but the world will be leaving you behind.
I also ask my ISP to support ipv6, but I imagine the same thing happens there. Engineers never get the memo because it’s deemed unimportant by people who make decisions.
The number of people with JS turned off are so small they don't matter, and on top of that, they're not monetizable, so I really don't care if the site works for them.
There is virtually never any business rationale for making that extra effort.
Give people the option to easily turn off the crap, and you’ll find out how much it matters.