[jw14]

> Because in 10 years nothing you built today that depends on JS for the content will be available, visible, or archived anywhere on the web. > All your fancy front-end-JS-required frameworks are dead to history,

Pretending to know anything 10 years in advance is foolish.

There’s a degree of contempt here. That makes me evaluate this as a rant.

If my target audience is developers, I’ll consider using server side rendering. For normal people I doubt it matters either way.

[TeMPOraL]

> For normal people I doubt it matters either way.

Did you ask? Like, honest to god talk to people about how they feel about the website - not just rely on deep telemetry that mostly serves to let people lie to themselves and whitewash doing whatever they want to do as being "data-driven".

A big problem with modern technology is that the feedback from users does not reach the vendors.

[jw14]

It should be pretty easy to tell what ratio of hits had JS disabled. If it’s more than a tiny minority, I’d do something.

I have plenty of things to talk to users about without getting them into whatever this is (still deciding if I class this as paranoia or being cautious or some kind of elitism). Based on the level of vitriol, looks like one of the outer 2 so far.

If you want to persuade developers to do things differently, bad mouthing their tech choices is a really bad strategy.

[TeMPOraL]

> It should be pretty easy to tell what ratio of hits had JS disabled. If it’s more than a tiny minority, I’d do something.

You can't expect normal people to browse with JS disabled, because by definition of "normal" they have not enough technical knowledge to do it, and to deal with the issues it causes on the modern web.

> I have plenty of things to talk to users about without getting them into whatever this is

This is the real answer to the question, "why is my computer so slow"? Regular people still mostly think "it's viruses", but it's not viruses - just web developers making websites with no consideration of end-user performance.

> If you want to persuade developers to do things differently, bad mouthing their tech choices is a really bad strategy.

I think this is a viable (even if not most efficient) strategy, because the current standard practice came from praising these choices. Counterbalancing the cargo cult through pointing out the trade-offs being implicitly made is a good idea, IMO.

[jw14]

> You can't expect normal people to browse with JS disabled

> This is the real answer to the question, "why is my computer so slow"?

Yes I can. That's one of my criteria to start taking this seriously. Though I could be persuaded other ways.

Do you have any data to back this up?

Do any internet security suites (whose job it is to "protect people from viruses") advocate disabling JS?

Is Apple Safari switching off JS?

Are there popular Chrome extensions that do this?

If it's really that important to you, you can probably go help make one of the above happen.

Actually I care about front-end performance a great deal. I advocate for it, as well as server side rendering.

I'm just not convinced about the evils of JS. I routinely have plenty of tabs open and if my fan starts running I close the one that's using the most CPU. Half the time it's Slack.

So far, "I've disabled JS" translates in my mind to "tech extremist". Not seeing a lot of people doing it and not believing the reasons. At least not yet.

My technical decisions are driven by efficacy, expediency, skill marketability and what I enjoy working with. If you want to change my mind you'll need to speak to those factors.