It's like saying a company should be present in each and every market. It might or might not make business sense to do that. Same with JS - it might or might not make sense to support non-js browsers, based on your target audience.

The Web was not meant to run on specific markets, platforms or browsers.

It's the World Wide Web. Being accessible to everyone is the whole point.

We have other platforms that target specific markets. That's fine. But we only have one Web.

Why? Every browser has JS, and it's a core web technology.

I quite often use Lynx[1], which does not support JS.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynx_(web_browser)

You and GP are missing the point: the site uses an ocean-liner's worth of JavaScript in order to do anything at all. HTML is also a core web technology and is arguably more "core" than JavaScript.

Does every screen reader have Javascript?

Screen readers integrate with browsers, they don't implement an entire browser on their own, so yes.

I disagree with this assumption "Content should still be accessible without JavaScript" in 2016.

It's not specifically against JS, it's a matter of parsimony. One shouldn't require more than what's needed for the job. KISS. Of course, most of us fail to perfectly abide by that, but the principle is solid.

But why? Who made the rule that websites should work without JS? Content being accessible without JS is best practice. I get it and it was very valuable a long time ago. It comes in handy sometimes today but for most of the internet accessing world, working without JS is not a requirement. I do not get why people ding products for not working when JS is not enabled.

> Who made the rule that websites should work without JS?

It's not an arbitrary rule, it's just that they always have.

That's the hole point of progressive enhancement, you don't start requiring some technology as soon as it reaches x% market share and ignore the remaining minority. You build on top and offer a better experience to those that can or want.

In the apps world, it's usual to draw a line on a set of minimum system requirements and expect that line to move forward as the years go by.

But this is the Web, being accessible should be a priority.

It's still valuable unless your time is worthless.