QtD 0.1 is out!

[John Reimer]

Hello Chris,

> Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> 
>> "Daniel Keep"<daniel.keep.lists at gmail.com>  wrote in message
>> news:gmfujj$2t5$1 at digitalmars.com...
>> 
>>> Ary Borenszweig wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Daniel Keep escribió:
>>>> 
>>>>> "No files in this directory."
>>>>> 
>>>>> Well that sucks.  Oh well, I... hey, wait a second...
>>>>> 
>>>>> *unblocks javascript*
>>>>> 
>>>>> "No files in this directory, but there ARE subdirectories!"
>>>>> 
>>>>> Sometimes, I really wish there was a way to electrocute people for
>>>>> making their sites break without Javascript...
>>>>> 
>>>> What? Why?
>>>> 
>>>> A web like that without Javascript is awfuly slow and ugly...
>>>> 
>>> So... not having a scripting language would make pages run slower.
>>> 
>>> ...
>>> 
>>> I *really* hope you're joking.
>>> 
>>> As for the "ugly" argument, that's bunk as well.  The only two
>>> things you can't do without Javascript is to perform dynamic
>>> positioning and visibility.  But you don't NEED those to make
>>> aesthetically pleasing pages.  Just go look at CSS Zen Garden.
>>> 
>>> *deep breath*
>>> 
>>> <tirade>
>>> 
>>> I have no problem with having scripting available for pages in
>>> general. But what DOES make me spew LIQUID HATE from every bodily
>>> orifice [1] is when they use Javascript to REPLACE FUNCTIONALITY
>>> THAT HTML ALREADY HAS.
>>> 
>>> Like the sites where instead of using hyperlinks, they use
>>> Javascript in onclick events.  Gee thanks, a**hole, you just broke
>>> tabs.  Thanks for dictating how I'm allowed to view your site!
>>> 
>>> Or the sites where they "inject" the content of the page like this:
>>> 
>>>> <script>document.write("THE PAGE CONTENT");</script>
>>>> 
>>> Or pages where they have forms that go over perfectly ordinary HTTP
>>> POST and use perfectly ordinary form elements... but the submit
>>> button doesn't work BECAUSE IT REQUIRES F**KING SCRIPTING.
>>> 
>>> This sort of bulls**t is inexcusable.  It's like breaking someone's
>>> legs and saying "but now you can use crutches; isn't that great?!"
>>> 
>>> No, you broke my legs you bastard!
>>> 
>>> What's more, thanks to the plague of popup ads, ads that hang your
>>> browser for 5 seconds every time you mouse over the word "synergy"
>>> in an article, ads that show up in the same window but OVER the
>>> content, ads that play music or stream video when I'm on a
>>> QUOTA-LIMITED 'net connection, ads that start TALKING to you if your
>>> mouse goes anywhere near them or sites that just generally abuse the
>>> hell out of scripting, I'm amazed ANYONE browses the web with
>>> Javascript enabled by default. Frankly, if you build a site that
>>> utterly depends on Javascript to function [2], then you're an
>>> _idiot_.
>>> 
>>> You want to use JS to make the site more usable?  That's great!  But
>>> you DO NOT break basic functionality to do it.  EVER.  If you can't
>>> figure out how, you're not qualified to be writing JS for web pages
>>> [3].
>>> 
>>> As someone who used to do web development: anyone, **ANYONE** who
>>> does this should be taken out back, shot, hung, drawn&  quartered
>>> then buried upside-down at a crossroads under a crucifix with a
>>> steak through the heart and a silver bullet in the head.  Then burn
>>> and salt the earth just to make sure.
>>> 
>>> </tirade>
>>> 
>>> Sorry about that, but MAN do I feel better.
>>> 
>>> -- Daniel
>>> 
>>> [1] ... to borrow a phrase from Ben Croshaw.
>>> 
>>> [2] Obviously, this doesn't apply for sites that GENUINELY cannot
>>> function without Javascript.  Stuff like Google Docs or a Javascript
>>> image editor; that stuff is fine because HTML can't do that.
>>> 
>> This is by far the best description/explanation of the evils of
>> Javascript I have ever seen. It might sound a little extreme to some
>> people, but speaking as another person who has done plenty of web
>> development, there is absolutely no way to cover this topic
>> *properly* without putting it in such terms. If the above rant is
>> overly-*anything*, it's overly conciliatory. There's just no excuse
>> for so many of the things that most web developers do.
>> 
>> Now if we can only nudge Daniel to give the same treatment to Firefox
>> 3... ;)
>> 
>> BTW, Daniel, if you're on Firefox, you need to install the Adblock
>> Plus addon and set it up with some of the subscriptions here:
>> http://adblockplus.org/en/subscriptions  I'm not exaggerating when I
>> say that for a few months before I found that addon, using the web
>> was so bad I was *very* close to abandoning use of the web entirely.
>> (I have some other addon recommendations too, if you're interested.)
>> In fact, that addon is the main reason I use Firefox as my primary
>> browser even though I generally dislike Firefox. This addon still
>> doesn't solve all of the problems with JS, but it at least changes to
>> web from "completely unusable garbage" (and that's no exaggeration)
>> to merely "frequently irritating".
>> 
> You must frequent some fantastically horrible websites.  I use the
> 'net quite frequently, and I don't experience anywhere near enough
> consternation to even consider finding a popup blocker.
> 


Yeah, I don't go to that many websites beyong a usual few.  Firefox's built-in 
popup blocker has been sufficient for me (and it usually tells me when it 
has blocked a popup).  It's actually been a long time since I've worried 
too much about popups.  I /do/ remember the day, though, when popups were 
a problem, and it was annoying. 


My beef is mostly with JS and Flash which noscript handles quite well.  


-JJR