Arbitrary abbreviations in phobos considered ridiculous

[Nick Sabalausky]

"Nick Sabalausky" <a at a.a> wrote in message 
news:jjlvdh$1to3$1 at digitalmars.com...
> "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy at yahoo.com> wrote in message 
> news:op.wa2pimkxeav7ka at localhost.localdomain...
>> On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 15:27:30 -0400, Nick Sabalausky <a at a.a> wrote:
>>
>>> "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy at yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:op.wa1432xjeav7ka at localhost.localdomain...
>>>> On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 14:41:53 -0500, Nick Sabalausky <a at a.a> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> You know what I think it is (without actually looking at the code): I
>>>>> think
>>>>> they tried to do some highly misguided and even more poorly 
>>>>> implemented
>>>>> hack
>>>>> (which they no-doubt thought was clever) for dealing with *cough* 
>>>>> "old"
>>>>> *cough* browsers by inserting a meta redirect to a hardcoded URL, and
>>>>> then
>>>>> used JS to disable the meta redirect. If that's the case, I don't know
>>>>> how
>>>>> the fuck they managed to convince themselves that make one drop of 
>>>>> sense.
>>>>
>>>> It could be that they don't care to cater to people who hate JS.  There
>>>> aren't that many of you.
>>>>
>>>
>>> There are enough.
>>
>> Apparently not. 
>> http://developer.yahoo.com/blogs/ydn/posts/2010/10/how-many-users-have-javascript-disabled/
>>
>> I'm perfectly willing to give up on 1-2% of Internet users who have JS 
>> disabled.
>>
>
> Does nobody understand basic statistics?
>
> First of all, 1-2% is a *hell* of a *LOT* of people. Don't be fooled by 
> the seemingly small number: It's a percentage and it's out of a *very* 
> large population. So 1-2% is still *huge*.
>
> Secondly, I don't believe for a minute that such figures accurately 
> represent *all* non-JS users:
>
> A. Most non-JS users *do* occasionally switch JS on when they need to via 
> NoScript, etc. So that right there is *guaranteed* to leave the results 
> biased towards the "use JS" side.
>
> B. Look at audience: That's *Yahoo*. How many of the technical people you 
> know use Yahoo? Yahoo is primarily an "Average Joe" site, but disabling 
> JavaScript is a power-user thing. It's not a representative sample, and it 
> *certainly* can't be assumed to be applicable to something like Dr. Dobbs.
>
> C. Things such as Google Analytics are based on JS. So right there I have 
> questions about whether or not such things accurately record all non-JS 
> users in the first place.
>
>
>>> And it's beside the point anyway. Things that don't need
>>> JS sholdn't be using JS anyway, regardless of whether you hate it or 
>>> have
>>> enough brain damage to think it's the greatest thing since the 
>>> transistor.
>>
>> No, it *is* the point.  As a web developer, javascript is used by the 
>> vast majority of users, so I assume it can be used.  If you don't like 
>> that, I guess that's too bad for you, you may go find content elsewhere. 
>> It's not worth my time to cater to you.
>>
>
> And it's not worth my time to use your piece of shit excuse for a site.
>

And besides, you're still conventiently ignoring the fact that sites which 
require JS typically provide a *worse* user experience then sites that don't 
use it, *even when JS is enabled*.

So you want to say "fuck off" to the millions of people in that "measly" 
1-2% just for the sake of making your site *worse* for the other 98%? Fine, 
be a self-defeating idiot, if you insist.

And before you say "No! They like it better with the JS-ness!", I'll point 
out that most people only *think* they know what they like. Don't forget 
what happened when Vladimir's D forums were posted on Reddit: All those 
JS-using redditers (reddit requires JS for most features, so it's safe to 
assume most reddit users are JS users - non-JS users are likely to avoid 
reddit) who *thought* reddit had a reasonable user-experience were absoutely 
*floored* by how "fast" the D forums were. (Personally, I find the D forms 
to be normal speed and reddit to be absurdly slow.) JS-users *prefer* non-JS 
sites - they're just too brainwashed to realize it.

Notice too how those forums load entire pages faster than AJAXy sites like 
GitHub do their beloved partial reloads.