emscripten

[Nick Sabalausky]

"Jeff Nowakowski" <jeff at dilacero.org> wrote in message 
news:iejblg$jl1$1 at digitalmars.com...
> On 12/18/2010 01:49 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>>
>> Ok, so why would I want to turn JS on and put up with those shitty
>> browser-killing, user-experience-killing JS Ads just for a calculator 
>> that
>> obviously doesn't need it?
>
> Do as you please. I find it trivial to enable specific pages with 
> NoScript.

I never said turning it was too difficult. Sure it's easy to turn on JS with 
NoScript. And sometimes I do. Problem is, that frequently turns on a bunch 
of other crap on the page leaving the page nearly unusable, or at least far 
less usable. Therefore, it would be far better not to have to.

> The question is why should the web author spend extra time for a tiny 
> minority of users that get up in arms?
>

The situation does not boil down to that. Like Adam pointed out, it's easy 
to just do it on the server, and then it works just fine for everyone. And 
if you *really* want some JS niceties for the tiny minority that actually 
give a crap about not needing a page or iframe reload, then nothing's 
stopping you from doing so (and yes, that *is* a tiny minority - they're 
just very very vocal).

So, you could do it the, I'm not going to claim it's a good way, it really 
is a shitty way (response/request/server scripting) that only excludes the 
tiny minority of users that get up in arms over a page reload, or you can 
exclude the non-sheep people just for the sake of being able to use 
something that's even shittier (JS/AJAX/etc.)

> You talk about dinosaurs and being pretentious in another thread, but 
> you're the biggest curmudgeon on the newsgroup. Even I have learned to 
> live with JavaScript, and I used to hate it just as much as you.

Saying that videogames are dishonorable and provide no benefit to society is 
idiocy (and in a fairly pompous way; and it is a fallacy that's primarily 
exhibited by older generations). Saying that it's good to require JS for 
things that don't need JS is also idiocy (but in a more technical way; and 
it seems to be more prevailent among newer developers). To claim that's a 
hypocritical inconsistency inherently implies that dumb notions can't exist 
in both new and old varieties - that there can only be bad things about the 
new or that there can only be bad things about the old. Of course there can 
be both, why wouldn't that be possible?

I definitely don't deny being the biggest curmudgeon on the newsgroup. But I 
don't see that as bad: People generally swallow far too much crap (unless 
I'm the one dishing stuff out, in which case everyone pounces on me if I get 
even the slightest thing less-than-perfect...or perhaps more accurately: if 
it's anything less-than-popular).