Arbitrary abbreviations in phobos considered ridiculous

[James Miller]

On 13 March 2012 14:58, H. S. Teoh <hsteoh at quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:
> 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.

The phrase in web development is "Progressive enhancement" that used
to be all the rage at one point. I miss those days...

--
James Miller