[Piskvorrr]

Well, okay, great. Let's assume that I do write perfect code to run inside the webpage (which is what I strive for, and there are tools that help me with that; your radical new idea for JS static analysis tool has been implemented for years, and I'm actively using it). Great. And then the code needs to cooperate with multiple ad network codes, third-party plugins, all while working around browser-based bugs (oh, and did I tell you that there are various browsers, each with its own set of quirks?).

So, yes, I am trying my hardest not to write shitty code, and to make it resilient - but no: it doesn't help nearly as much as your original comment suggests it would, because there are numerous forces beyond my control affecting the result. Worse, some behaviors that are inconvenient to me are seen as desirable by the respective library/browser/OS makers ("you say bloat, I say essential feature"), so even if all the parties involved up and down the stack were producing 100% shit-free code, the result of their interactions could still be shitty.

As for the automated-under-the-hood-fixes inside browsers - yeah, that would be great if there wasn't a need for those, or if they didn't exist at all (even though I'm aware that their existence enables inflationary expectations in JS developers). I'd also like a pony while we're in wishing-land.

TL;DR: No, handwaving away complex and leaky abstraction stacks doesn't work.