Well the main issue isn't that browsers don't support Javascript, but that some people disable running scripts or have plugins like noscript that disallow scripting.

Even with the disables ones added in, the business case is just not there: http://developer.yahoo.com/blogs/ydn/posts/2010/10/how-many-...

not to mention I can't even imagine the user experience drawbacks. your website would just suck in comparison to any competitor.

Curl doesn't support JavaScript. Neither does wget.

If I'm on a netbook, tablet, or phone, your JavaScript will chew my battery. I don't want that.

I don't trust you. Don't take it personally; I don't trust most websites. I haven't signed your key, and you haven't signed mine. I am not okay with letting you execute code on my machine.

Your JavaScript sucks. Again, don't take it personally; it's a tricky and frustrating language with lots of pitfalls. However, you messed up, and now your script is busy-looping or eating bandwidth with endless AJAX. I'm blacklisting your script until you fix it.

These are just off the top of my head, BTW.

Edit: Spelling.

You represent < 2% of the market, you examples do not represent the majority of most sites customer or user base. As such business should make decisions based on the demographics of their users. The reality is their is a finite amount of capital businesses have to spend on software efforts, as such they have to prioritize their spending based on the most amount of impact for their money. Further, they have to compete with the usability and features of their competitors so their is pressure to adopt more modern practices to provide software that users become accustom to as industry norm.

Okay, fine, here's a better example. People with disabilities. Is your JavaScript ADA-compliant? Is it business-savvy to ignore your legal requirements towards them?

Yes, A good toolkit like Dojo not only is WAI and A11Y compliant, but it exceeds the abilities of web 1.0 framworks, instead of having things like high contrast plugins for browsers they are baked right into the toolkit and are activated based on browser meta data. Part of my consultancy is web accessibility modernization through JavaScript toolkits. Web 1.0 frameworks, as of today, cannot comply with the upcoming legislation, but the larger JavaScript toolkits are already there and have the most complete implementations available. Further the current set of laws only require that a screen reader such as JAWS works on a site which JavaScript has no bearing on, we do tons and tons of JAWS testing in my organization. The future of the web is being increasingly implemented in JavaScript toolkits, the shift has already happened, as such the toolkits are starting to surpass the offerings that are available in the old server side frameworks. Because they are increasingly getting developer mind share. Accessibility is one of those areas that they are way out in front on. http://dojotoolkit.org/reference-guide/dijit/a11y/statement....

People aren't using good toolkits. People are open-coding everything. You might have gotten it right, but Joe JS Developer isn't.

Have you considered slimming down your walls of text? You seem to be using lots of words to say "no u," and it's tempting me to draw parallels between the simplicity of the JS-less Web and the relative complications of the JS-ful Web.