On 3/15/21 9:47 AM, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: > Again, the Javascript trap is a good place to start ...
No, it isn't. The JavaScript Trap is a (reasonable) argument against trends of modern web apps, i.e., a software architecture relying on code-on-demand that lies under someone else's control, esp. when that software is not freely licensed. It is not an argument against JS. *Every* occurrence of the words "JavaScript" and "WebAssembly" in the messages written here have been arguments against the former, not the latter. There is no reasonable argument against the latter on free software principles. Please stop responding to your opponents as if they haven't read The JavaScript Trap. Please start responding as if you've actually read (and understood) the arguments your opponents are standing behind. Assume that your opponents have an understanding of the relevant issues at hand that is at least as sophisticated as your understanding, and that they abhor inscrutable and obfuscated ("minified") code-on-demand bundles at least as much as you. Consider this passage from The JavaScript Trap: If the program is self-contained [...] you can copy it to a file on your machine, modify it, and visit that file with a browser to run it. But that is an unusual case. In particular, consider the irony of it, in light of the way this discussion has gone. In this discussion, it has been you all who would bear responsibility for this case remaining "unusual": by continually invoking the web app canard and responding to imagined caricatures of the arguments being sent your way, rather than the actual arguments themselves. PS: Neither GNU nor FSF even have a fatwa against JS. IceCat has endorsement. Just like Emacs uses large amounts of elisp, IceCat consists of hundreds of thousands of lines of JS. Both its existence and that of LibreJS are contradictions of the notion that JS is inherently worthy of being shunned. -- Colby Russell