JavaScript is part of the web platform; you don't get to take it away and expect the web to work

>JavaScript is part of the web platform; you don't get to take it away and expect the web to work.
>>--Tom Dale

Does Sup Forums agree or disagree with this statement?

...

I dont trust anyone with two first names

>not using C webservers
>not using JSP
>not using ASP
>not using literally any alternative to JS

Tom Dale deserves to get diagnosed with cancer too late for it to be treated.

>stressing the server for every fucking menial thing

>stressing the user for every fucking menial thing

Why not just not do menial things?

>Does Sup Forums agree or disagree with this statement?
It doesn't matter if people agree or not, it's essentially true. Everyone read this thread in a browser is using JavaScript.

>Everyone *reading this thread in a browser is using JavaScript.

Literally who
Also I saw this statement originally on Sup Forums, so I don't think if Tome Dal actually exists.
Anyways, it's like saying Python is a crucial part of Linux. No, it isn't and it's shit. Both Python and JS.

thank you js for making youtube take 15 seconds to load, gmail rougly half a minute and facebook roughly 10 seconds

>so I don't think if Tome Dal actually exists.

You can literally google search the name and get his web site.

>My name is Tom Dale. I helped create Ember.js, a JavaScript framework that brings sanity to the web.

>In October of 2011, I co-founded Tilde with Yehuda Katz, Leah Silber and Carl Lerche.

There's nothing wrong with JavaScript. The problem is entirely with crappy web developers.

>there's nothing wrong with a flame thrower
>the problem is people burning things with it

JavaScript is inherently shit because it creates complexity where no complexity ever existed.

The web is so mindlessly simple, it's web developers who complicate it.

He's not wrong. That doesn't make JS any less cancerous though.

>helped make a JS framework

That doesn't narrow it down much!

>"All modern websites, even server-rendered ones, need JavaScript. "
>"Client-side JavaScript applications are damn fast."
>smartphone user bullshit everywhere
>"There’s a misconception that client-rendered JavaScript apps are only useful for more “application-y” sites and not so-called “content” sites; Vine and Bustle are two frequently cited examples. But client-side routing, where you have all of the templates and logic available at the moment of the user’s click, provides performance benefits to every site, and users are beginning to become conditioned to the idea that interactions on the web should be near-instaneous."
>javascript
>near instaneous

This man is cancer.

There are some instances when it's perfectly acceptable to use. It becomes an issue when the entire fucking webpage is javascript.

JavaScript, like ads, is a potential malware vector and thus should be disabled by default

If you removed any external connection function like e.g XHR from JS would it be better?

I mean, corps would not be able to track your shit and basically JS can be used for rendering purposes only.

I disagree.

Fact: The ominous "web platform" can achieve all the same functionality with and without JavaScript.
Observation: Every JS-utilizing website can be doing the same thing without utilizing JS.

Conclusion: If JS were to be "taken away" it is well within reason to expect the web to still work.


Now if OP said something like:
>JavaScript is part of the modern web platform implementation, you don't get to take it away and expect the JS-dependant websites to work without any change in code
then sure, that works. But the way it's worded in OP? Nope.

I agree, AJAX functionality really improved websites 10 years ago. but now devs are writing their entire """web""" """"""""""app"""""""""" in javascript/jquery and third-party frameworks, guaranteeing that the site won't run smoothly even on a high-end computer.

Any one else feel like JS devs have created a problem with JS, then argue that they need more JS to fix it?

I mean, speed of rendering and the loading of sites was a pretty long-since solved issue that didn't exist until JS came along.

Like this bit for example:
>provides performance benefits to every site, and users are beginning to become conditioned to the idea that interactions on the web should be near-instaneous.

if performance and "near-instantaneous" web sites is what you want, then the answer is HTML, not JavaScript. Use Dillo for a few minutes and you'll see what I mean.

What's wrong with a flame thrower?

back in 2007, I had an old Athlon XP which rarely had any performance issues on websites, including youtube. but even then there were the few odd sites that had some sort of fuckhuge javascript system rendering a menu with dozens of items and thousands of subitems, which completely froze the browser for a while.

well, try to use the web with a similar system today, and you'll see that the web is almost unusable due to browser bloat, sites with large amounts of JS, ads and 10 embedded youtube videos, and sites with 5000x5000 images which are resized on the fly with client-side JS instead of the author doing it before uploading.

you got bandwidth issues m8 and probably live in a third world shit country

>lol he lives on not-America
>that means it's fine to make websites that are 100kb of website and 5MB of javascript

Web developers continue to show they have no idea what the web is or what it was for.

spoken like a typical JS "web dev". blames the user/hardware/network bandwidth/server resources/web standards/government/aliens, but the fault is NEVER in bloated unnecessary JS written by the dev himself.

>100kb of website and 5MB of javascript
Show some examples. 90% of what you load from the average website are images.

Tom is shilling for Advertisers and the FBI.

That is bullshit. Sure there are things not working without js (twitch for example isn't really possible without it) but the basics of any website should work without js. I am one of the last webdevs that do all without js and then add the layer of bloat that is js on top of it for better usability - still the website will work completely without js too.

How about this page we're on right now?
>9 images - 73kb
>1 html - 53kb
>5 js - 406kb

>Everyone read this thread in a browser is using JavaScript.
this statement is wrong. I use w3m from work. First define "using". I may not be able to post without js, but I still can read the website and lurk.

Javascript is not part of the web platform.
It's code you have to execute locally.

inb4 node.js

The web isn't even a "platform." It's a universe of connected documents. It's no more a "platform" than your computer's file browser.

agree

you are retarded by the way

Agreed.

ooooh did I tickle a nerve, friend?

he said gmail takes half a minute to load which means he has severe issues with bandwidth

i don't make business decisions to appease faggots who can't afford to get off their dial up

If that makes you angry, compete with me ;^)

I disagree. A fully functional website can be made with just php or cgi.

Why do we keep allowing "web developers" to make decisions?

>"This site works best on..." shit
>Websites whose links are a giant image with co-ordinates for hyperlinks
>flash web sites
>now java script

When will we learn our lesson?

But I have a script blocker. I can take JS away as often and selectively as I want.

But html5 has a video tag that works with streams.

These "developers" are actively making the internet worse by promoting this unnecessary garbage. They are incompetent and should be purged.

>business decisions
Javascript isn't a business decision, your parents basement isn't a business. Stop larping kid, you're embarrassing yourself.

Kek
Found the aspie

What is wrong with JavaScript? I don't see the hate boner everyone has for it.

I used it everyday last year until i switched to the backend, now we use Golang.

Probably because muh privacyyy

lol you are so mad about it though, why?

My website works without Javascript.

Although you won't be able to see the image galleries, cookie warning, most ads and the contact email address.

Why would anyone care about the 0.001% of autistic people who turn off Javascript? They won't generate revenue for the site anyway.

1)its a shitty language
2) it damages performance. Like, alot. The web shoud be the lightest platform, not trying to replace every fucking desktop program.

This

>cross platform
>sandboxed environment
>extremely easy to push updates
The web should be replacing desktop programs. Desktop programs are awful.

Fuckhead, what are you using to run your precious JS apps?

Plus it creates problems we never used to have.

Loading a web site never used to be an issue. We had long since gotten past the point where we were worried a page might not load. But now we can have one of the God knows how many various scripts not load right and the entire page is a white box of nothing.

Add in to that that the developers of browsers need to keep making sure they're compatible with the various JavaScript memes, rather than improving the actual performance of the browser, or adding genuinely useful features.

this. JS should die, or get back to what it used to be - a light layer of sugar on top of websites.

i guess you guys don't like rich applications?

whatever enjoy your plain text i guess. im just glad you guys will never influence anything ever

ASPie

Why would anyone want a WEB BROWSER to be able to play DOS games?

You don't expect a spreadsheet program to be able to play music, so why make a program designed to navigate connected documents be a miniature operating system?

Underrated post

Are we back in 1998?

/thread

javascript is cancer,
most things would work fine without it.

your simple site doesnt need absurd amounts of javascript loaded from 30 different external sources just to read some text.
and even if you do need it, you dont need all that much unless its a game or other highly interactive website.

> The web shoud be the lightest platform

This is what I don't get. "We need to adjust web sites for phones and other small screen devices."

It's only hard because people make it hard. There's nothing a phone couldn't do to render tags properly. There is no appearance information in HTML. There's no information in a block-quote to tell it how it should look outside of structural characteristics.

The whole point was that this is decided by the browser, to ensure maximum compatibility.

since half of Sup Forums's time is spent jerking off over retro web 1.0 "user made" content in notepad from the late 90s it makes sense that they would pretend to hate any browser library that can help. As discussed in an earlier thread, if you take out JS or any client side lib like it, you instantly lose:

-the ability to make small changes to hide information that isn't relevant to you based on a choice earlier, like changing css to display:none. you would understand why this matters if your time is valuable to you and don't want to read 50 different choices that shouldn't have even been displayed because you answered "No" to the earlier question or checkbox.

-the ability to get just a small change in data or to do something realtime without having to refresh the entire page.

Nobody makes the whole web app in js for anything serious, they use mvc and then the results are all hidden at first and then they are displayed with JS. you'd know this if you weren't an unemployable contrarian making hello worlds in 80s hipster langs

Sup Forums has no idea how websites after 2003 work which is how you see these hippie dropout loser ideas about how we should remove "javascript, html, and the web was a mistake anyway because I'm a loser". no wonder that nobody here that thinks this is now or will ever be employed. Works out because nobody in the private sector will ever take you seriously, stick to butt diddling each other on IRC.

Reality check:

1. 99.999% of all people who hate JS don't understand Scheme.

2. 0.0001% of all websites work without JS.

3. There are no alternatives to JS aren't complete memes. JS will grow exponentially, in a few years everyrthing will be Java script. Operating systems, browsers, internet of things.. you name it.

HTML and HTTP are the only fundamental parts of the web, with a browser being something to put the two together to show the user something, that something being a document, with links to more documents. There were simple characteristics there, but there was no set standard on how for example was to be displayed, outside of it being a heading.

All the extras on top of this have caused the browsers to have to be compatible with an ever changing playground of developers who have no idea what they are actually doing. Were they able to control themselves and remember what the web was meant to be there would likely be ways by now of putting the most useful features in to HTML with very minimal system load.

This is all hypothetical of course as we have spent years perfecting things until some new junk appears. This is something we all admit and know, which you clearly don't. 10 years browsers spent trying to be the absolute best at dealing with Flash plugins, then Flash died, but all of that is still in the software even though it now has no use.

We've seen all this before and it never ends well for the user.

I fully agree with you that flash and anything like it like activex were improper solutions to these problems and also that having the entire site done in js is a bad idea.

You cannot re-send the entire page for every small little thing. You need a browser library to make small changes. You could replace JS with some other library but it'd essentially be the same thing and the (psuedo-)complaint would be the same.

I'm not saying this towards you, but the only people I've really seen say that js needs to be removed are the vocal plan9 and amiga suicide type and most of this hilariously has to do with there's no homebrew browser available for them that can even handle JS, 99% of sites don't work properly, and ends up in the cartoony situation where they say the entire web needs to drop 15 years of progress to suit their needs.

you can recaptcha without javascript retards

form posting its something new, you can even do "assynchronous" requests by submiting to a frame, thats where ajax comes from

javascript is stupid, you lose control of your browser

if you really need a functionality like the reply markings on Sup Forums, you can grab the code pieces on Sup Forums JS that does this, and convert to a bookmarklet

i wish browser dev werent retarded and allowed user do disable popup, eventhandler, XHR, webrtc, websocket, pretty much anything other than internal DOM modification without inserting new elements that would incur in new http requuests.... but they are more worried about material design or dying their hair purple

oops

>form posting its something new,
isNT*

I can see where they're coming from. JavaScript does do a lot to break things that worked fine until then. But the real issue is the people deciding what HTML is capable of, and forcing people to use a poor tool (they obviously didn't learn their lesson from floats) to do a simple job. A list of links no matter how long is very easy to do with a very small footprint: it's called "folding" and text editors have been doing it for decades. Why they can't allow HTML to render this is beyond me, since it's still perfectly within the capabilities of text browsers as well.

So people tie their menus to Javascript, which takes it out of the possibility of non-JS browsers, which the web foundation should be doing all they can to stop.

But they don't. Instead they waste their time on bullshit like changing the tag (which makes text bold, hence the B) to , and same with the very clear for Italics. How about they just leave that stand and focus on actually adding useful functionality to HTML?

>HTML and HTTP are the only fundamental parts of the web
>not TCP/IP

ftfy

>ASP

die

>using ASP.NET web application
>click table column to reorder data
>performs a postback
>server reorders things
>browser reloads page
>takes 10 seconds
>would have taken 0.00001 ms with JS on the client

Yeah, javascript is so obnoxious and annoying.

No, I do not.
Waiting for that Web Assembly

I agree with this statement

If you have no idea what you're talking about, you probably shouldn't comment on it

It is true that the web doesn't function well without JavaScript, but I don't agree that it should be this way. JavaScript should never be required for viewing a webpage, that is just retarded shitty web design.

You could make the argument that reordering tables should be a browser function, not a script.

So we will just go back in time and add that functionality to all existing browsers?

If only there existed some widely adopted technology that allowed web developers to supplement the functionality of existing web browsers...

Oh well. I guess some things just aren't meant to be.

...

Browsers often have updates that increase their functionality.

This is a much better way for developers of browsers to spend their time than fiddling with the UI.

Besides, why use Javascript for it? Why not just make a table in Flash?

holy shit, i just installed dillo, and god damnit it's so fast! I mean even on my shitty connection, this thing loads everything instantly.

would be great if everything didn't look like shit

Things look like shit because they rely on css and javascript to take care of aesthetics.

Really, the worrying over the appearance of the web is a trend that needs to stop.

shut the fuck up you little fucking cunt i will slap the crying right the fuck out of you do you hear me?

None of these allow the DOM to be changed without a page refresh.

>in Flash
>Flash
Only reason to have Flash installed in a browser is to use legacy websites that can't or won't switch to something better. Flash is cancer.

>the point
>your head

So how do you make for example a datepicker without js?

Type it in using that board of keys in front of you.

uh, idk,

then each browser can implement it in an efficient manner and the user doesnt have to be trust that the website wont use his computer to ddos another site in the background

the same visuals you would give to a datepicker in js you do in pure html+css


but talking of existing methods, frames, iframes and css

the JS approach would also waste requests unless youre talking websockets...

but thats not the point, the point is you could make your translucent, animated datepicker, but you should build it ontop of a working form with an input for writing the date in plaintext

(you should server check the date format anyways, since you cant rely on JS to enforce anything)