[davisr]

I'm hearing you say, "don't waste your breath because change is not possible." And there you have your self-fulfilling prophecy.

To quote someone who lived before me: don't accept the things you cannot change. Change the things you cannot accept.

And the no-JS ship has not sailed. Government websites require accessibility, and at least in the UK, do not rely on JS.

[dpark]

Then you misheard me.

I’m not saying change is not possible. I’m saying the change you propose is misguided. I do not believe the entire world should abandon JS to accommodate your unusual preferences nor should everyone be obliged to build two versions of their site, one for the masses and one for those with JS turned off.

Yes, JS is overused. But JS also brings significant real value to the web. JS is what has allowed websites to replace desktop apps in many cases.

[MarsIronPI]

> Yes, JS is overused. But JS also brings significant real value to the web. JS is what has allowed websites to replace desktop apps in many cases.

Exactly. JS should be used to make apps. A blog is not an app. Your average blog should have 0 lines of JS. Every time I see a blog or a news article who's content doesn't load because I have JS disabled I strongly reconsider whether it's worth my time to read or not.

[davisr]

Did I say abandon? No. I said it should not be required. JavaScript should be supplementary to a page, but not necessary to view it. This was its original intent.

> JS is what has allowed websites to replace desktop apps in many cases.

Horribly at that, with poorer accessibility features, worse latency, abused visual style that doesn't match the host operating system, unusable during times of net outages, etc, etc.