On 03/12/2012 10:58 PM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 09:17:22PM -0400, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Tuesday, March 13, 2012 01:50:29 Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
On Tuesday, 13 March 2012 at 00:25:15 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
But that's a decision based on your needs as a website developer.
If JS best suits whatever the needs of a particular website
developer are, then they are completely justified in using it,
because 99% of the people out there have it enabled in their
browsers.
If it takes ten seconds to support 100% of the people out there, why
not?
[snip]
Now, there *are* cases where you can't do this so easily.
If you're stuck on poor PHP I'm sure this is harder than
in D too... but really, do you have one of those cases?
All I'm saying is that if it makes sense for the web developer to use
javascript given what they're trying to do, it's completely reasonable
to expect that their users will have javascript enabled (since
virtually everyone does). If there's a better tool for the job which
is reasonably supported, then all the better. And if it's easy to
provide a workaround for the lack of JS at minimal effort, then great.
But given the fact that only a very small percentage of your user base
is going to have JS disabled, it's not unreasonable to require it and
not worry about the people who disable it if that's what you want to
do.
[...]
The complaint is not with using JS when it's *necessary*. It's with
using JS *by default*. It's with using JS just because you can, even
when it's *not needed* at all.
It's like requiring you to have a TV just to make a simple phone call.
Sure, you can do cool stuff like hooking up the remote end's webcam to
the TV and other such fluff like that. But *requiring* all of that for a
*phone call*? Totally unnecessary, and a totally unreasonable
requirement, even if 95% (or is that 99.9%?) of all households own a TV.
(And for the record, I don't own one, and do not plan to. I know I'm in
the minority. That doesn't negate the fact that such a requirement is
unreasonable.)
OTOH if you want to *watch a movie*, well, then requiring a TV is
completely reasonable.
The problem today is that JS is the "next cool thing", so everyone is
jumping on the bandwagon, and everything from a single-page personal
website to a list of links to the latest toaster oven requires JS to
work, even when it's not necessary at all. That's the silliness of it
all.
T
It's not the next cool thing. It makes thing more understandable for the
user. And it makes the web transfer less content, and leverages server
processing time. It's the next step. It's not a backwards step. :-P
I figure then Google people are just all a bunch of idiots who just like
JS a lot...
