Arbitrary abbreviations in phobos considered ridiculous

H. S. Teoh hsteoh at quickfur.ath.cx
Mon Mar 12 18:58:16 PDT 2012


On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 09:17:22PM -0400, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> 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.
[...]

The complaint is not with using JS when it's *necessary*. It's with
using JS *by default*. It's with using JS just because you can, even
when it's *not needed* at all.

It's like requiring you to have a TV just to make a simple phone call.
Sure, you can do cool stuff like hooking up the remote end's webcam to
the TV and other such fluff like that. But *requiring* all of that for a
*phone call*?  Totally unnecessary, and a totally unreasonable
requirement, even if 95% (or is that 99.9%?) of all households own a TV.
(And for the record, I don't own one, and do not plan to. I know I'm in
the minority.  That doesn't negate the fact that such a requirement is
unreasonable.)

OTOH if you want to *watch a movie*, well, then requiring a TV is
completely reasonable.

The problem today is that JS is the "next cool thing", so everyone is
jumping on the bandwagon, and everything from a single-page personal
website to a list of links to the latest toaster oven requires JS to
work, even when it's not necessary at all. That's the silliness of it
all.


T

-- 
Computers shouldn't beep through the keyhole.


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list