[salawat]

I'm also a big fan of Git's UX in that regard. Solid point.

W.R.T. Stallman, I sort of agree with him. JavaScript as a portal for code getting on my machine that is ruthlessly obfuscated so I cannot efficiently determine what it is doing is a danger that I personally have significant qualms with wanting to support. I don't mind dynamic webpages, and the functionality it enables, but I absolutely abhor some use cases it enables; namely browser fingerprinting, runtime code encryption/decryption of payloads within the code, and other deceptive practices like running a cryptocoin miner or exfiltrating information I'm not okay with a la exploits like Spectre and Meltdown.

If people were decent and considerate with their JavaScript I'd be more amenable to it. However, the blatant abuse of the technology I've seen perpetrated by the industry just turns me off of it altogether.

>Then don't ask them to implement the UI part. It's also fine to ask for a prototype in JS/CSS that you can reimplement with the best tools you see fit.

Fair.

>A good minimalist design is really hard to pull off, so it's good enough, but as hard as making something really shiny.

Also fair. Do you happen to be a UX person? You sound like a blast to work with.

[tiborsaas]

It's all valid points, but I personally don't care, I rarely see a page that obnoxious because of its JS use. Most sites I find repulsive is their use of ads. Now if there were no JS in browsers, these site would still plant heaps of ads only with CSS, it's not the code execution to blame. If the publisher controls the layout then it's game over for freedom :)

> Do you happen to be a UX person?

Not a label I'd put in my title, but I like UX, it's an integral part of building good products so I spent fair bit of time exercising it. I'm a full stack developer and who likes to build experiences users love.