[cercatrova]

I used to think this. I even used uMatrix (RIP) to disable all JS. After a while though, it simply wasn't worth it. You'll have a vocal minority on HN of JS disablers, but the truth is most people don't know or care about JavaScript, much less want to disable it. So, it's really not worth catering to this 0.2% or even 1% of people as the article cites.

There are just too many interesting things JS can do. I've been playing around with Three.js and it's been incredible the types of 3D art you can create. I want to make those experiences for users which is simply impossible without JS.

However, I will also say that most of the websites I do make will work without JS because I use Next.js as a server rendering framework, plus CSS can handle a lot of things these days, such as modals, link trees, etc that used to require JS and I use those where possible.

What I will not do though is re-implement logic just for JS disablers. A particular example is using an animation library like Framer Motion that works with JS. It is somewhat possible to achieve similar effects in CSS, creating your own spring function in SCSS for example, to interpolate between values, but I'm not going to do that because it's effectively double the work for 1% of the users. Even the 1% figure is misleading for production apps if you use TypeScript (to prevent JS breakage) or modern dev practices like distributed CDNs (to prevent a package from getting loaded).

[oblak]

I am a js disabler who writes js for a living. "Apps" are hard without js. Not worth it and I do not expect anything complex or interactive to work. Stuff like HN and news/forums function just fine without, though. And that is great.

[tbran]

I agree. Javascript can do cool stuff. When the author said:

> I'd prefer to write js all day — but finding html and css only solutions has made me a better developer.

> It's forced me to find creative ways of solving problems — and to learn new html and css features.

...it made me think about how you can often do cool thing by taking advantage of some browser functionality, then you look it up on caniuse.com and it's only available on 75% of browsers. Much worse than using a few lines of JS that can't be used by 1% of users.

[onion2k]

I'm not going to do that because it's effectively double the work for 1% of the users.

This implies that if you only did the CSS version you'd do the same amount of work as the JS version but it would work for everyone. Why wouldn't you do that? Doing only the JS version means you spend the same engineering effort but it doesn't work for as many people. Choosing to do that when you have a choice makes absolutely no sense.

[cercatrova]

> A particular example is using an animation library like Framer Motion that works with JS. It is somewhat possible to achieve similar effects in CSS, creating your own spring function in SCSS for example, to interpolate between values, but I'm not going to do that because it's effectively double the work for 1% of the users.

> > Doing only the JS version means you spend the same engineering effort but it doesn't work for as many people

Where did I say it would be the same engineering effort? I explicitly said it's more for the CSS version. In my example, the CSS version is inferior to what the JS library can already do. Creating a spring animation is only one of the things that Framer Motion can do in JS built in. If I did everything in (S)CSS I would basically be re-implementing Framer Motion, which, as I stated, is double the work for <1% of users. Why would I want to re-implement a package when it's already there for me to use? So yes, it "absolutely makes sense" to do everything in JS only.

[yellowapple]

> Where did I say it would be the same engineering effort?

Saying "double the work" implies the doubling to be total - i.e. the Framer Motion approach and the SCSS approach are each 100%, and doing both would therefore be 200% or double.

What you're saying now would be more accurately described as "triple the work" - i.e. Framer Motion would be 100%, SCSS would be double that (200%), and the total would be 300% or triple.

[cercatrova]

Yeah, I guess you could say that, so in reality it's even worse (more overall work for me) in order to reach 1% of users.

[graftak]

The usual suspect for js style manipulation are animations, and because css animations have all sorts of limitations where you will likely run into so it's more convenient to use the same js tooling for animations almost everywhere.

[capitainenemo]

I don't know much about your particular use case, but in my experience implementing an animation in CSS results in a smoother animation with better GL acceleration in the browser resulting in a lot less CPU/battery consumption.

So. There's that.

But otherwise I'm broadly in agreement. If you're making an online application, it pretty much requires JS. Not so much for CRUD db form apps/forums/blogs/wikis etc.

[bearmode]

>Not so much for CRUD db form apps/forums/blogs/wikis etc.

If you want decent/custom FE validation you do still need it

[capitainenemo]

I assume "FE" means "form error" - personally I agree with you, but you can still make it work without it.. "progressive enhancement" where validation is still done serverside which is an absolute must even if you do use JS for that.

Also, HTML5 validation is pretty darn powerful these days. Check it out if you haven't already.

[easrng]

Probably "front end". But yeah, you can do a lot with just html and css.

[pyuser583]

I have a medical disorder which could one day render me blind.

I worry about how much of the web I will be able to use.

Don’t JS free web pages have better accessibility?

[Tajnymag]

As long as the underlying DOM uses the correct semantics, there shouldn't really be a great difference. One can write a static page that would be less accessible than a js heavy alternative. Screen readers nowadays work with the rendered page DOM, not the raw html.

[robalni]

I don't care how many people there are that care about whether they are running javascript. The problem persists even if 0 people care about it.

The problem is that people are getting abused, even if they don't care about it. They are unknowingly lending their computers to unknown people who use them as their tools by running code on them. My computer is my tool and nobody else's.

If website owners think it's totally fine to run code on my computer when I visit their site without my permission or knowledge, I wonder what they would think if I ran code on their servers without their permission or knowledge. That would be fair. My computer for you and your computer for me.

[nfw2]

Do you feel the same abuse when you download a desktop application, and it runs code?

You are free to revoke your permission for any site to run javascript, but website owners are not obligated to go out of their way to provide their services to you if you choose to do so.

[robalni]

> Do you feel the same abuse when you download a desktop application, and it runs code?

Not if the source code is available. Other reasons for no are that it's not automatic and invisible.

> You are free to revoke your permission for any site to run javascript, but website owners are not obligated to go out of their way to provide their services to you if you choose to do so.

People don't do that enough for it to have much of an effect.

[whakim]

I'm not really sure I get the point. Simply opening a browser means you're allowing the browser developer to run code on your computer, and you're giving them permission to do so by downloading, installing and using their software.

[robalni]

The differences between the browser I'm currently using and a random website with javascript on the web are:

- The browser's source code is available so I can see what it does.

- The browser is distributed by Debian who also distribute most other software I use so there is 1 organization to trust instead of 1000.

- The browser is not downloaded and executed and upgraded automatically, so it's possible for me to know what code runs and doesn't run on my computer.

- There are multiple browsers I can choose from. I can't choose which javascript to use when I visit a website.

- I can modify the browser if I want it to work differently (which I have actually done). It's harder to modify the javascirpt on a website because it's updated every time and very tied to the rest of the site and is often unreadable.

- Modifications can be distributed, so if I make a better version, other people can use it and forget about the original version if it was bad.

[whakim]

I guess I understand (and respect) the argument that you only want to run code that you can vet and easily modify. But I don't think most people feel that way - I think most people expect that they're getting some service (like a browser) by allowing developers to execute arbitrary code they've built on their device. I therefore don't think javascript is abusive in the way you describe it, because it follows the paradigm people expect and want out of their software.

[robalni]

> I guess I understand (and respect) the argument that you only want to run code that you can vet and easily modify

This is not about me. It doesn't matter what most people feel or what they want to do. It's the situation where people are expected to run often invisible code written by untrustable people that is wrong. People should have the right to know and control what their computer is doing, even if they don't want to use that right. The current situation doesn't allow them to have that right.

> I think most people expect that they're getting some service (like a browser) by allowing developers to execute arbitrary code

The problem is that it's too easy for developers to use other peoples' computers for their own benefit when the current situation of the web is that people automatically let random people on the internet run code on their computers. It happens all the time. That's why they should not have this freedom.

[whakim]

This is purely about your preferences. You're arguing for a world in which the vast majority of people give up something they really like in exchange for something they really don't care about. "Abusive" is quite literally the wrong term because the exchange (you run arbitrary code on my device, I get software I want to use) is helpful to most people, not harmful.

[easrng]

Modifying websites with userscripts, userstyles, and extensions is wayyyy easier than modifying native apps IMO, especially if they aren't open source.

[robalni]

The problem with modifying javascript is that it is very dependent on the website so the modified version can stop working at any time. I can't write a javascript program for a website and then use it forever just like I can write a text editor and use it forever.

[danaris]

Any Javascript your browser runs is, by definition, available for you to see what it does.

[robalni]

It's usually distributed in an unreadable format and even if I'm able to read it, it may change the next time I visit the website without any notice, so I would have to read it every time I visit unless I want to risk using and outdated version that will stop working soon.

[verisimilitudes]

It's funny how this argument doesn't fly with people when it comes to blocking advertisements, with one man claiming it takes food out of his child's mouth.

[yellowapple]

Maybe he should consider feeding his child with actual food rather than my personal data. Probably would taste better, at the very least.

[bearmode]

Lmao are you serious? You're specifically visiting their website. You are explicitly requesting whatever they're serving up. It's akin to complaining that a program you downloaded is gasp executing code on YOUR computer!

[robalni]

> You're specifically visiting their website. You are explicitly requesting whatever they're serving up.

It would be preferable if I could visit a website without having to trust them to run code on my computer. In general, it's preferable to make things as little intrusive as possible.

> a program you downloaded is gasp executing code on YOUR computer

The same is true for programs people download too. There is too much abusive code, both on the web and in other programs.

When I download a program I do it from a trusted source. The program has the source code available and I (and everyone else) have the right to read and modify that code. The web can't work like this because:

1. Websites are so many that I can't trust all of them.

2. Even if the javascript is readable, it is tied to the rest of the website and can change at any time so any modifications or rewrites will stop working.

[connordoner]

Unless you want to go down the ultra-pedantic route that HTML is markup rather than code, why are you reading HN?

[robalni]

The difference between HTML and Javascript is that it's much harder to use peoples' computers for arbitrary things through only HTML. With Javascript it's done all the time. I don't know what this has to do with me reading HN but I can add that HN works without Javascript which is something more websites should do so we can get rid of the expectation that you have the right to run arbitrary script code on peoples' computers when they just want to read a page of text.

[krapp]

You do have the right to run arbitrary script code on people's computers. That's been a fundamental part of what the web is and what it is capable of for over 20 years. You, as a web developer, publisher, what have you, have the right to write whatever code you want, even to render text, just as you have the right to design your own page layout, choose your own fonts and colors. It's up to the user agent to decide whether or not to run the code.

[robalni]

Something is not right just because it has been happening for a long time.

> It's up to the user agent to decide whether or not to run the code.

Yes, it should be. The problem is that things are constructed so that that solution doesn't work because most people don't know how to do it and if you do it a lot of things break. That forces people to let others take control over their computers when they may not actually want to do that. If I let you control my computer, that should be because I want to, not because I'm forced to in order to be able to do what I need to do.

[krapp]

>That forces people to let others take control over their computers when they may not actually want to do that.

This is unnecessarily fear-laden hyperbole. Javascript doesn't force you to let others take control over your computer. And even if it did, for the sake of argument, then literally all code you run does the same, and likely takes far greater control than javascript is capable of.

[cercatrova]

Then, don't visit their websites? If you want to run only things you trust, then do so. Others (both users and website creators) are free to make their own decisions.

[robalni]

I want to use the web and do a lot of other things on my computer. I don't want to have to avoid a lot of things just because people tend to make abusive software.

> Others (both users and website creators) are free to make their own decisions.

I don't know how much of a free decision it is when the user can't know or control what the code is doing.

[AkshatJ27]

This reads like satire.