Arbitrary abbreviations in phobos considered ridiculous
Jonathan M Davis
jmdavisProg at gmx.com
Mon Mar 12 18:17:22 PDT 2012
On Tuesday, March 13, 2012 01:50:29 Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
> On Tuesday, 13 March 2012 at 00:25:15 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > But that's a decision based on your needs as a website
> > developer. If JS best suits whatever the needs of a particular
> > website developer are, then they are completely justified in
> > using it,
> > because 99% of the people out there have it enabled in their
> > browsers.
>
> If it takes ten seconds to support 100% of the people out there,
> why not?
[snip]
> Now, there *are* cases where you can't do this so easily.
> If you're stuck on poor PHP I'm sure this is harder than
> in D too... but really, do you have one of those cases?
All I'm saying is that if it makes sense for the web developer to use
javascript given what they're trying to do, it's completely reasonable to
expect that their users will have javascript enabled (since virtually everyone
does). If there's a better tool for the job which is reasonably supported,
then all the better. And if it's easy to provide a workaround for the lack of
JS at minimal effort, then great. But given the fact that only a very small
percentage of your user base is going to have JS disabled, it's not
unreasonable to require it and not worry about the people who disable it if
that's what you want to do.
- Jonathan M Davis
More information about the Digitalmars-d
mailing list