[grayhatter]

You mean other than the reduced risk of compromise from the latest js engine exploit? Or that it also prevents some xss injection? Or that often many sites will still function with most external scripts disabled, i.e. it disables spyware that many sites don't need to install, but still do?

Besides all of that, it makes the web more usable in most cases. Not more functional, more usable. I don't want your site to hijack my browser scroll, nor do I want your modal popups to interrupt me. Plus, I like knowing the level of competency of the site's developers. If it doesn't function at all without enabling a half dozen external scripts/sites, even if I still want to use your site. Which is then unlikely, I know to lower my expectations about how much I can trust you or your site.

[Capricorn2481]

How about loading the table row you just added instead of reloading the entire page, table and all?

I'm against bloated apps and ads, in favor of using forms and HTMLs strengths, but JS is the tool and not the cause of poor design. A web developer that doesn't use it is offloading their identity based allergy onto the users bandwidth.

Plus you can make modals without JS

[grayhatter]

> How about loading the table row you just added instead of reloading the entire page, table and all?

Show me a single site that uses js in this way. But, and here's the trick... it has to *actually* use less network bandwidth. My issue isn't with js as a web development tool. My issue is with js when it's the wrong tool.

> A web developer that doesn't use it is offloading their identity based allergy onto the users bandwidth.

That's an interesting hypothetical, but I'd be willing to be more user bandwidth is consumed by needless JS scripts, than by all the engineers that you'd call "allergic" to js.

> Plus you can make modals without JS

Show me one that triggers when I scroll too far, or move my mouse outside of the window that doesn't use js?

All of your claims lack evidence... there's plenty of things that sound great in theory, but have been toxic and user hostile every time someone has actually tried to apply said theory.

[Capricorn2481]

> How about loading the table row you just added instead of reloading the entire page, table and all?

Lots of sites use JS that way. This was the default way of doing it with JQuery. Yeah, an object with a couple fields is going to use less bandwidth than loading the whole page, in the case of a row.

I agree that you can absolutely find people overusing JS, but your original position was the web is better off without JS. In fact, you implied developers using it weren't competent, but now you've changed it to "actually it's okay if it's used right" which is what I said.

> All of your claims lack evidence.

Nothing I said lacks evidence, in fact they're pretty basic things you can verify? It seems like you want me to prove the entire Internet is using JS how you like. I'm sorry, bad sites are always gonna suck with or without JS

[grayhatter]

I'm asking for a single example. I can find a few, they're the sites that complain about the JS ecosystem. But my point was never that JS the theoretical feature is bad. My point was, and is; JS the thing that exists, is bad. Because nearing a total majority I've only seen JS misused.

You gave an example that I agree with, that would be a useful use of JS. Does that exist, or is that just a theoretical example? Theoretically, a lot of stuff is good. Theoretically, amphetamines could be over the counter... everyone just needs to use them responsibly!