[craftyguy]

> which is their loss

Exactly what my stance is towards sites that 'need' crap to work. My favorite are news sites/blogs whose primary content is text, but display a completely white blank page when the adblocker is up. (some even do this when you disable JS too. why JS is 'required' for displaying any text is beyond me)

[pwg]

> why JS is 'required' for displaying any text is beyond me

It is not. But this is likely a result of either:

1) simply not realizing that the newfangled 'framework' they are using requires JS to render text

2) intentionally requiring JS to render text, because then JS will be on so they can also deliver ads (i.e., a form of "anti-adblock").

[bisby]

3) not all readers just want plain text and there are JS based features that actually appeal to readers.

Things like backgrounded next page loading may not seem appealing to you, but stuff like that does fall into the category of "people actually like this" and not "implemented to intentionally force ads on people".

We use an express server to pre-render our text, which means you can always see the content, but when you strip out JS, you lose a lot of navigation perks.

I fully support you not wanting JS, but don't act like opting to use a ubiquitous tool is somehow either ignorant or malicious.

[craftyguy]

> We use an express server to pre-render our text

That's silly. Unless your users are on throttled dial-up inet, and you're trying to feed them several volumes worth of text (a MB or so?), pre-rendering text on the next page is not a good enough excuse. This must mean you are using some large framework to deliver text and present your website. HN seems to be able to deliver tons of text to users without javascript bullshit, why can't you?

[beobab]

Cost, I would imagine. It's there. It's working for most people. The "only people complaining" are those who want to take what you have to offer and stop you from getting advertising revenue for seeing it.

Your argument, whilst full of technical merit and other benefits which you have not mentioned, is perhaps not persuasive enough to those who control the purse strings.

[bisby]

I mean we pre-render our text before it hits the browser. So if you have JS disabled, you still get text.

Also, HN has a completely different userbase than most websites. The biggest complaint about Android in the early days was "it has UI/UX for engineers" (that I personally loved). 99% of people aren't looking for a website experience like HN. Most people WANT some sort of slight flashiness and style. Also, most people don't use noscript. It's a valid tool to use, even if it is abused by some. We still run tests to make sure our total delivered payload is small and monitor accessibility stuff. Just because some sites are built like a dumpster fire using modern frameworks doesn't mean all modern frameworks are bad.

There is a huge difference between "you have completely abused javascript and now I get a blank white page with JS off" and "you've used JS to make interacting with your page much nicer"

[craftyguy]

Thank you for not breaking the non-JS use case, and thanks for elaborating on your point!

[craftyguy]

> It is not.

That's why I put 'required' in quotes, indicating that they think it is (for the reasons you pointed out) but it's obviously not.