[lurtbancaster]

A page such as this[1] requires javascript to be enabled to be viewable on github. Viewing any and all "/blob/" pages on github requires javascript to be enabled now. It didn't used to be this way ~1 year ago but github is slowly making javascript necessary on many pages for some annoying reason. I could set up a redirect to the '/raw/' pages but then the syntax highlighting is gone.

The same page is perfectly viewable over plain html on gothub[2] though.

Github also seems to be hiding their "Assets" (binaries et al) on the "/releases" page for some projects behind javascript(especially older versions).[3] Something else that wasn't the case about ~1.5 years ago.

Would be great if gothub could unshackle the links to those as well[4], but that doesn't seem to work at the moment[5] .

This project appears to be a more performant(measurably so), more privacy friendly(as Microsoft won't have a record of your interest in certain projects) alternative front-end for "non logged in" github users.

I like it, but it still needs work.

[1] https://github.com/mackyle/sqlite/blob/18cf47156abe94255ae14...

[2] https://gh.bloatcat.tk/mackyle/sqlite/blob/18cf47156abe94255...

[3] https://github.com/mikf/gallery-dl/releases

[4] https://gh.bloatcat.tk/mikf/gallery-dl/releases

[5] https://codeberg.org/gothub/gothub/issues/74

[o1y32]

Outside HN (and similar crowds) barely anyone has an issue with web pages running JavaScript. I understand the sentiment but don't think it's practical or useful/meaningful. That's how the web works, mostly. And that definitely does not justify the existence of this project -- the github website is generally fine and the use of JavaScript greatly enhances the experience especially after recent updates.

[lurtbancaster]

I have no problem with javascript. I think javascript can greatly add to the web experience.

"Add to" being the keyword there. Not "in lieu of".

You want to add javascript to enhance UI/UX outside the scope of what can be accomplished with plain html? Great!

You want to use javascript to add a feature that simply can't be done over plain html? Great!

You want to use javascript to hide a bunch of text on a public webpage, so those who have javascript disabled on their web browsers can't see the text, and will be forced to enable javascript, just to look at some text on a webpage? Unforgivably garbage design!

I will remind you that github used to work perfectly fine without requiring javascript merely a year ago. At least for basic perusal.

I think it is extremely silly design if I'm required to enable javascript, just to look at some text on a public webpage.

Again, nothing against javascript. But don't make it mandatory is what I'm saying, especially for casual browsing.

[jstummbillig]

What will need to happen that "but JS" stops being a self-serving argument?

If it performance poorly, as with anything else, let's hear it. But I do seriously wonder: Is there a sport in breaking a websites legs and point at it, while it's lolling on the floor?

I am not feeling it.

[inferiorhuman]

It's both performance and quality.

Reinventing links detracts from the UX. You can't hover over the link and see where the link goes. Modifier keys often aren't respected meaning you can't open a link in a new window/tab with just one click. Fake links also break things like screen readers.

Reinventing the text widget means you're invariably going to miss something. Maybe you'll miss a "power user" feature like keyboard navigation. Maybe you'll miss something esoteric like rendering Chinese characters or find on the page. Maybe you'll break a rarely used feature like scrolling. Maybe you'll just display random characters.

To me it seems like a large part of the pain of requiring javascript is less about breaking nojs and more that devs are using javascript to poorly/partially reimplement key browser features. I'm reminded of the "Just normal web things" post the other day.