The web is an app delivery platform now, not just an information delivery platform.
Plus, we have a lot of processing power on the client side, which should be utilised.
JS, when used well is not a bad thing. If a site uses it badly, just don't go to that site.
No arguments there.
> Plus, we have a lot of processing power on the client side, which should be utilised.
I don't agree with the "should" here at all. Lots of the stuff is done on the client these days which could be done cheaper on the server. If I'm visiting a site that's developed as an application then I fully expect to running a bunch of JS, no qualms there. But there is no reason my phone should be forced to build a bunch of HTML just so I can read an article, and that's the problem: people are developing information sites as "apps". This is a large factor of why my phone can't hold a charge for a full day.
This statement nails the problem that all of us suffer from. It’s like people have to add “feature” to make their site compelling because the information on it is not good enough.
Unfortunately, I don't think there'd be enough takers to make it a viable product.
Information for free, without ads, is tough to do.
But the goal usually isn’t to let you read an article.
Often the goal is to get you to read another article, click an ad, sign up for a newsletter, or buy a subscription. Apps can be good for all that.
You are correct here: the goal is to get you to read another article, click an ad, sign up for a newsletter, or buy a subscription
But I think that contradicts the idea users get a lot of value from JS.
You are correct, and
But because we're not neanderthals, you can also whitelist the sites/apps you like to run JS (in Chrome) and/or use another browser for your JS-powered sites/apps.
That said the modern web is generally very broken with js off, but it does get rid of most cookie banners, modal email sign ups prompts and generally lets your read article number 6 of the 5 free ones.
It would be one thing if this was a matter of consent. It isn't. It uses your resources without your permission. Leaving JS on is not permission to consume as much CPU as you want (otherwise, every website would also run a crypto miner).
> If a site uses it badly, just don't go to that site.
This sort of blitheness is very surprising to me. What if we're talking about a passport site, or an unemployment benefits site, and so on? Why is the onus on the user and not the developer?
If the user is forced to use a terrible government website (as we all are from time to time), removing JS will fix absolutely nothing there. If anything, it might make things worse, as there will be a bunch of things you simply cannot do without JS (e.g cropping a photo to upload to a passport site - how would you even draw out the crop region without JS?!)
JS is not the problem. Crappy developers and corrupt officials who award key contracts to crappy developers are the problem.
Ads are are a nuisance race to the bottom.
That does not mean it should be utilised by you. Have some humility as a developer.
I think a lot of these "you don't need JS" things you see out there are either (a) a sensible reminder that your JS-filled app doesn't have to do EVERYTHING with JavaScript (looking at you, JSS), (b) a contrarian "JS sucks" take, (c) an appeal to use outdated tech like PHP instead, or (d) just a clever way of getting attention on sites like hackernews.
It's this JavaScript that is loaded at the bottom of every page:
https://news.ycombinator.com/hn.js
There is a no-JS fallback. If you disable JS with uBlock Origin or whatever, then reload the page and try voting, you will see the page reload. But thread collapsing won't work at all.
while media _shouldn't_ run arbitrary code, there's also nothing stopping a malicious actor from crafting something that breaks through a buffer overflow in the .mp4 codec for example
the safest bet would probably be "assume anything can run arbitrary code, even if it's not supposed to"
https://opensource.adobe.com/dc-acrobat-sdk-docs/acrobatsdk/...
https://opensource.adobe.com/dc-acrobat-sdk-docs/acrobatsdk/...
Preferrably in useful work. The fact that end user interfaces are sometimes slower than what they were in the late 90s suggests this is often not the case.
Why learn anything new or spend anything extra when you can just ship substandard web crapware to users who have no choice (looking at you, Slack).
Among others, smaller shops and single-person companies surely benefit from one delivery platform if you ask me. Even if it's not perfect.