←back to thread

451 points todsacerdoti | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.203s | source
Show context
keeganpoppen ◴[] No.45058084[source]
i will say that though i am predisposed to appreciate and agree with an article like this, any sort of value proposition around "some users don't want javascript" just doesn't... hit for me. and, mind you: i am a card-carrying arch user and have spent more time messing with browser scripting and web crawling, and am more of a True Believer than most. it's just such a niche user preference that i think it should largely be simply ignored. yes, i would love the world to be better for the "noscript" universe, no, i don't think that any individual "grassroots" effort should stake itself on "no javascript" being any part of its utility. i think there are a million other reasons why CSS should win out that are more compelling than an appeal to what feels, extremely ironically, like a callback to the "but 10% of your users use IE6" days... all in all, yes: this is somewhat of a minor point wrt. to the article (which btw i think is great), but i am just calling the "trend", such as it is / has been, for what (i think) it is.
replies(5): >>45058205 #>>45058259 #>>45058381 #>>45058464 #>>45059079 #
inopinatus ◴[] No.45059079[source]
The drawcard for me is that I can do in a few bytes of declarative CSS things that take many lines of imperative JS to get right, with fewer weird misbehaviours, fewer framework compatibility issues, and a lower time-to-interactive. Working under noscript conditions is just a cherry on the cake.

Deep down inside, however, I miss DSSSL.

replies(3): >>45059904 #>>45060166 #>>45062690 #
1. b_e_n_t_o_n ◴[] No.45059904[source]
The cost is increased complexity in both the CSS spec and browser implementations.