People don't turn off JavaScript because they hate technology and want to live in caves and eat moss. They turn off Javascript because they don't trust that the code won't cause harm.

Do you run every binary file sent to your email? I don't, as I don't trust the criminals that sends malware through email. I do run binaries sent through email if I trust it, like if it is cryptographic signed by someone I trust.

I would predict in a renewed trust in JavaScript if the language got limited, similar to the filters that exist in noscript, TBB, privoxy and other similar projects. No cross-site calls, no rewriting of links, no loading of tracking images and so on. The technology that prevents malware need to evolve and progress, or the result is that people will simply stop using new technology where the risk of being attacked is high.

> In this thread: people who don't turn JavaScript on by default and are unhappy when sites don't work because of it.

I think you have this backwards, sorry. Perhaps it used to be true?

We have reached a tipping point where using a JavaScript blocker like NoScript actually improves the browsing experience. And not just a little bit, I mean substantially. The NoScript UX is good, and I can easily toggle domains on/off. I very seldom have to enable JS for a new site and my list of permanently white-listed sites is relatively small, maybe 20 or so.

To anyone who still thinks that JavaScript makes your browsing experience better, try browsing without it again. The shitstorm of clutter and annoyance that people keep complaining about is now the worse option. No one is hijacking my scroll, no modals are blocking the page content, pages load lightning fast, it's great! For a select few sites that can be trusted to run JavaScript to improve my experience, they get white-listed and work well too. It's my browser, running code I decide to approve, and the overall experience is very good.

This may be true if it weren't for that fact that you mention "Are we on Hacker News? A technology site?"

As engineers, developers, and designers, there is a mantra of designing software to "fail gracefully". This means that even if a user doesn't have Javascript enabled, a site will still function in a usable manner.

It also means that Web developers should not be including every JS library they can just to save from typing (or fast iteration out the door), when the result is a laggy page that takes forever to load, scrolls 5 seconds after moving the mouse wheel, and requires a computer built within the last 3 years. That is not efficient, and not the best experience you can give for your users, nor the best way to develop for them.

People here want to use technology and see it evolve. But in this case of evolution, the bogged down Web pages are slow, fat gazelles that will probably not have a long enough life to produce.

In this thread: people who won't turn on uBlock/AdBlock because "the poor websites won't make any monies" and would rather load gazillions (literally tens if not hundred of megabytes per website) of tracking scripts and potential attack vectors onto their computer.

No amount of content is a worthy exchange for you butt-fucking my browser, my computer, and my life.

I love using technology. I hate using shitty technology that detracts from the experience, by trying to provide an experience.

So you would have preferred a survey monkey experience to this site?

"This site" (and I mean HN) is almost entirely JS-free. Coincidence?

You'd prefer a reload of the page every time you upvote? Even a mostly static site like HN needs some JS to make the experience drastically better.

I do believe JS can make sites better. I just think that it's WAY overly used and abused, and actually makes most sites less functional. Think of it like salt: a little bit and it enhances your food. But if you keep piling it on, it doesn't keep improving things.

The keyword being some. If HN started requiring JS for basic browsing (like a lot of other aggregators out there already do), I'd get the hell out.

HN's reasonable and minor js is an exception. And you only need it if you want to participate in the voting system. Reading and commenting works without.

The vast majority of js does not seem to provide me with any benefit.

One could just make the arrows links that load in a hidden iframe and add CSS styling that hides the image when it's been clicked. It's not strictly correct (side effect for GET requests), but that's what happens as a fallback anyhow (you get links with JS disabled, you just have to open them in a new tab to avoid the reload).

I would have preferred this site not use crappy JS. Or at least not require it.

It works without JS too

For various values of "works". I can read it, but the map doesn't work, the survey doesn't work, and I can't see any results.

You're making the classic mistake of thinking that technology is inherently good.

It's not.

Javascript developers have done more to erode privacy, openness, and trust on the Web than anyone else.

Why would I, a reasonably savvy aerospace engineer who doesn't even know all the dirty little tracking tricks, even consider for one second enabling js by default?

At best I am "just" increasing some scumbag advertiser's profit. At worst I am going to catch something nasty.

Is the average javascript developer responsible for the horrible security model and the dubious javascript-accessable features added every year to web browsers?

This is like saying developers of MS Windows applications are responsible for the horrible period of Windows worms we had a decade or so ago before MS started to get more serious about security.

The front-end community is responsible for forcing it to be used on most sites even for basic functionality like reading an article.

That is a specious retort. You don't need to pwn the browser to track a user.

Yeah, wanting brochures on the web to display without 10 megs of javascript is like eating with your hands and being afraid of fire.

It is not at all like "wanting my Android and Mac applications to work without code."

The web browser is a hypertext reader. When you go to a text content site, there is nothing wrong with expecting it to work without JavaScript.

In addition to the privacy and security concerns mentioned by other comments, I've noticed that a browser with JavaScript enabled and a couple dozen open tabs often causes the CPU fan to emit annoying noise, while the same workload with JavaScript disabled is blissfully silent and battery-preserving.

That's a bad analogy.

It's not even an analogy, it's just a series of slurs.

Honest question: why was this dead? It doesn't add much, but dead?

I am pretty sure people deliberately disable javascript for a moment just to make the first "oh-site-is-broken-without-js" comments. I think it is pretty illogical to expect any site to work without Javascript considering that even HN would end-up breaking some of its features.

HN works fine without javascript. The only change is that voting requires a page load. Most sites (especially ones that are basically just a bunch of text with junk around it) work fine without javascript, and it's easy to turn on for sites I want it on, so I have it turned off by default for sites I haven't visited, and if that causes them to just give a big expanse of blankness I usually leave.

I browse with javascript off by default and manage per-site settings with noscript. Ideally, sites would gracefully still work without javascript, but in a world of "rich webapps" I compromise.

At least maps.google.com let's you know, "When you have eliminated the JavaScript, whatever remains must be an empty page. Enable JavaScript to see Google Maps."

Instagram is just a blank white page.