Running unknown programs from random hosts on the internet - even in a limited environment - is a bad idea. Fortunately, documents (including images, audio, video, etc.) do not need Turing completeness. A lot of people will react strongly against the idea of not using JS, often because their income depends on tricking users into running spyware/malware,

Curious. This goes completely against the sentiment in all of the discussions around modern SPA frameworks and JS libraries I've seen on this very website. It seems that for most fronted devs today JS is a natural prerequisite for using their product. Progressive enhancement is often sneered at[1] as impractical and unnecessary. This leads me to believe that there are two mostly disjoint groups of people commenting on this issue in different threads.

---

[1] - Good example: https://www.viget.com/articles/the-case-against-progressive-...

I don't know which world JS devs are dragging us in, but it certainly looks shitty and ignoring every single thing software engineers have learned in the past thirty years.

If a site shows me nothing but a blank screen when I load it up with scripts disabled, I am very reluctant to enable 14 different script domains just to see a paged article, or worse, a slide show.

Allowing scripts to run only from whitelisted domains makes the web a better place.

If a site requires JavaScript, it already doesn't work. If a site requires JavaScript, its owner clearly doesn't care about either your security or your privacy.

Why use a site which requires JavaScript?

JavaScript delenda est.