> Sure, dude, ignore anyone without a machine that can run MBs of JS within a reasonable time.

I'd wager 90% can even run the strawman you're building

"Cell phones."

I'm amazed at how many websites there are on my phone that take 15+ seconds to load... and they've clearly been "optimized" for phones in the sense that the site reacts to being on a mobile browser and lays itself out for a phone... if I wait for the whole thing to load.

(I see this less often, but it's also amusing how many sites pop up their "hey, you've been here for three seconds so clearly we are an integral part of your life from now on even though the main page layout isn't actually done rendering, would you please like us on facebook, subscribe to our newsletter, and tell us your mother's maiden name and SSN? [allow this site to use location services [yes] [no]] [allow this site to push notifications to your home screen [yes] [no]] [allow this site to enter your bedroom at 3am to remind you how much it loves you [yes] [no]]" dialog where both the X to close out and the submit button is unreachable, because the position and zoom is fixed and the whole thing is too large.)

This is a question about JS vs no JS, not about optimizations of JS.

The fastest code is the code which never gets written.

That is fair, but when was the last time when a js only site was running on optimized JS?

All google products. But it is ridiculous to disregard JavaScript because some people can't write it properly. It is the same as saying that I wouldn't use a browser because I once went to a website that displayed a popup.

It is not ridiculous, machine crippling JS malware is a click a way and you will never know until you click. The safe strategy is JS off by default plus whitelisting.

> wouldn't use a browser because I once went to a website that displayed a popup

you would use a popup blocker though.

> machine crippling JS malware is a click a way

I have been using the internet nearly daily for about 20 years now. I can't recall a single time I clicked on something that gave me "machine crippling JS malware".

Barring some serious security gaps, JS isn't even capable of doing anything more than lock up the browser and maybe send some extremely minimal information about you back to someone elses server.

> Barring some serious security gaps, JS isn't even capable of doing anything more than lock up the browser and maybe send some extremely minimal information about you back to someone elses server.

Not true. First JavaScript Rowhammer exploit was publicized in 2015: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9L5MJ43nbkI

Interesting. I stand corrected.

Crippling in the sense that I have to forcibly kill whatever browser I'm using because it is using 100% cpu and the machine becomes very unresponsive.

There is a massive difference in downloading tonnes of JS every other day because there's a new React bundle and between having annoyance _once_.

Why are you trying to browse the modern Web on your Windows 98 potato from last century?

My core 2 potato^Wlaptop from 2008 can run pretty much everything I throw at it quite well, except for the "modern" web.

What are you throwing at it? Word 2008? Command line? Winamp?