[vroombaprime]

Browsers/webapps have only become this crazily successful because they allow seamless delivery of applications to run locally. I haven't seen anything to build "code-less" apps that can implement the complex features people want and isn't a complete nightmare to build and maintain. Until then everything you're talking about is just a pipe dream.

You can still make the apps you're talking about with html+css and enforce js=off in your user browsers, but there is a reason no one wants to do that these days.

And unless I'm not mistaken, there have been plenty of exploitable bugs in the core rendering engines that involve only html/css, so your utopian world STILL depends on a secure sandbox.

[CaptSpify]

> Browsers/webapps have only become this crazily successful because they allow seamless delivery of applications to run locally.

I'm going to heavily disagree with you. There were plenty of sites that were successful without using heavy JS. Most webapps I see can run easily without JS, they just choose not to. Yes, there are exceptions, but they are exceptions.

"The core features people want" aren't JS-pop-ups, and slow browsers. They want sites that work quickly, are easy to understand, and work on mobile just as well as on a desktop. I would argue that JS makes all of those aspects worse.

[sanderjd]

> They want sites that work quickly, are easy to understand, and work on mobile just as well as on a desktop.

Not quite: users want to achieve specific tasks as quickly and easily as possible. Certainly "work quickly" and "work on mobile" are two huge pillars of that for many (probably the majority of) tasks, but for many applications you have to make significant trade-offs in functionality under the constraints of a static site.

Anything built on the web is competing with something that already is or can be built natively. Native applications don't have to concern themselves with this sort of limitation on interactivity as a trade-off for latency, which is an advantage. On the other hand, the web has the (huge) advantages of open discoverability and no-install distribution. It makes sense for both platforms to be working to fill in their gaps while trying to minimize the trade-offs.

It's clear that slow startup due to big chunks of js (and media) on load has become a big problem, and people are working on that, perhaps without much to show for it yet, but it isn't obvious to me that ceding the territory of interactive applications back to native implementations would be the better way forward.

[CaptSpify]

And it's not clear to me that fixing a broken system is worth the time, when we have a working system standing by idly. I don't know of anyone who is asking for more interactiveness for most of the web, but I do know that non-js works, and works well. It may not be as "interactive", but I view that as a good thing.

Of course, this is all in context of a typical webpage. There are exceptions to this.

[SquareWheel]

> I don't know of anyone who is asking for more interactiveness for most of the web

Hi, that's me. The reason is, quite simply, because this is not a good user experience:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CmaP3JvUcAA8-5a.jpg:large

The open web is my platform of choice, and the technology is finally there. Progressive Web Apps[1] offer the features of native but are instantly-available, without downloading or installing. So yes, I very much want that as a developer.

https://developers.google.com/web/progressive-web-apps/

[CaptSpify]

I don't see how that image proves your point. Shitty designs are shitty if they are in a web-app, or mobile-app.

OK, fine. I'll concede devs want more interactiveness. I have yet to see evidence that users want more interactiveness. I think that points to the arrogance of devs "who totally know better than the user".

[SquareWheel]

Users want positive experiences, and devs want to build those positive experiences. Look at some of the most popular websites out there: Youtube, Spotify, Amazon, Reddit - they're built on interaction. You're not just reading a post on reddit, you're upvoting it and influencing the front page.

This had traditionally happened through POST/GET requests and having all the logic server-side. Yes it's possible to build interaction without Javascript, but it's not a great effect. Imagine if you had to wait for a page load every time you voted on a post on reddit.

Now extend that to modern webapps. Take Google's Voice Memos demo[1]. It loads instantly. It supports any device. You can even add it to your homescreen and you won't be able to tell it from a native app. Everything about it just works. Why would a user not want such an experience?

Javascript interaction is the natural evolution of the web. If it wasn't JS it would have been something else. This growth has been driven by users, devs, and browser vendors alike. There's nothing "arrogant" about it.

[1] https://voice-memos.appspot.com/

[sanderjd]

That's funny, I just replied to you arguing the opposite. People in tech are the only ones I ever hear complaining about rich web apps. YMMV I suppose!

[sanderjd]

> I don't know of anyone who is asking for more interactiveness for most of the web

I don't know of anyone, besides programmers, who doesn't like the current interactive-web-app web more than the decade-ago full-page-load web. They don't like ads and popups and things being slow either, but they love Gmail and AirBnB and Facebook and on and on. We should solve the problems without throwing away all the good stuff.

[code_research]

> but there is a reason no one wants to do that these days

The reason is, that JS is enabled by default, nothing else.

If users had the possibility to actively decide before any remote code will execute on their computer, how many would like to enable it?

We are just one default checkbox setting away from what you call "utopia" here - a word that should be used for much bigger things.

Of utopic naivity in deed is the expectation that such powerful features will not be misused - delivering browsers with code execution enabled by default will be looked at as one of the most funny things of the first internet in a few decades.

Web application development paradigms that enforce JavaScript usage as an absolute necessity are examples of "naive utopian deadends". It is totally anti-avantgarde and anti-progressive, we should not waste so many young talents on that.

[vroombaprime]

I'll be the first to lament the spread of javascript, SPAs, and the huge hit to accessibility that the web has taken over the years.

None of that changes that js adds incredible power to what webpages can do and there is zero chance of rolling back browser-delivered applications at this point.

I also don't understand why you think html+css doesn't have the same fundamental 'code execution' flaw - you're accepting unseen input from a remote source and feeding it into an execution engine which will have exploits - whether that's css or html or js or xml or *.

Back to your question though: yes, 98% of web users want remote code execution on because they want spotify, facebook, and youtube to work. They would be upset if they even had to manually go in and enable it. And I'm not even sure you could make a quality version of those sites without js.