[leggomylibro]

I already use noscript, but most people won't like having to hit 'temporarily allow' and reloading the page 1-3 times before most sites will function. Also, sites that lean heavily on trendy frameworks like fucking React often just white-screen because of their extreme reliance on JS. I'm hugely against its adoption for that reason, but I understand that I'm in the minority there.

I dunno, it just seems like common sense at this point. Javascript is a powerful attack vector, like ads. And many people already use adblockers in some capacity, for that kind of reason.

It'll definitely suck as HTML5's various peripheral features become strong and widely-used attack vectors.

[jdmichal]

I mean, if a site legitimately needs a large amount of dynamic communication back to the server... Fine, whitewall me until I enable your JavaScript. I understand that server-side rendering is basically dead. But it's really frustrating when it's things that could be easily served statically, like blogs.

[dom0]

> I understand that server-side rendering is basically dead.

Server-side rendering is a mature technology, don't measure it's pervasiveness in how often you see articles in the news about it...

[jdmichal]

Hey, I love ASP.NET as much as the next guy. But there's no mistaking the large trend from what used to be entirely server-side rendering (LAMP days) to REST services with JavaScript front-ends.

[theSpaceOctopus]

> But there’s no mistaking the large trend...

You didn’t say that, you said “server side rendering is basically dead”.

Believe it or not, lots of people are still building things without JavaScript front ends.

[jdmichal]

So is the only argument here that "basically dead" was a bit carelessly hyperbolic?

[chrisweekly]

SSR is table stakes for any reasonably modern web application.

[jdmichal]

No true Scotsman... I would say more, but that's your entire comment so I don't have anywhere else to go.