emscripten

[Nick Sabalausky]

"Jeff Nowakowski" <jeff at dilacero.org> wrote in message 
news:ied4mg$2u7f$1 at digitalmars.com...
> On 12/15/2010 04:31 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>>
>> But if you're going to make, say, a mortgage rate calculator,
>> excluding Lynx or requiring JS makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
>
> This is actually a good example of why you might require JavaScript. Here, 
> JavaScript is useful to the end user because it doesn't require a request 
> and response to the server, so everything is faster and smoother.
>

That makes no sense, given that it's entirely possible to for the JS to be 
optional. A mortgage rate calculator would be a good example of why you 
might toss in *optional* JS to streamline things, but to require it? 
Ridiculous.

> Supporting both JavaScript and plain HTML takes extra work for little 
> benefit, since the vast majority of users have it enabled.

I do make my pages usable both ways and I've found the extra effort to be 
downright minimal. Unless you're doing things very, very, very wrong, the 
vast majority of the work in a site is independent of JS vs non-JS.

>
> It's not 1995 anymore.

What's that line about those who refuse to learn from history?

And besides, no one's ever going to get me to agree with something simply by 
trying to shame me into it with some idiotic "newer-is-inherently-better", 
"Oh no! I don't want to be un-trendy!!" line of dumbass sheep-think.