Compare the site to sf.funcheap.com which I unfortunately use to learn about things to do here in SF. Yes, it renders without JavaScript enabled, but the two pages take the same amount of time to load in my browser, and Funcheap still tries to load resources from two domains blocked by uBlock Origin even with JS disabled (15 with it enabled). Is that really any better? There are so many miserable experiences on the web, most made particularly maddening by poorly applying JavaScript in the hopes of driving conversions on some metric. This site ain't it though.
Sure, the first load could include the initial brush of content in its markup. In 2022, this is a trivial change to sprinkle onto a front-end.
This seems like a non sequitur to me. What does javascript have to do with efficiency or minimalism?
That's absolutely not my experience? It needs googleusercontent.com scripts or something? I get blank pages from amp stuff, and 'de-amp' it for it to load.
> sometimes you just want them to solve the problem for you as fast and efficient as possible.
Your site displays a blank page without running javascript. You are a long way off from efficient or super minimal.
For all the hand wringing about google amp, one good thing they did was try to require that there be some main content which displays without any javascript.