Arbitrary abbreviations in phobos considered ridiculous

Nick Sabalausky a at a.a
Tue Mar 13 12:10:43 PDT 2012


"Ary Manzana" <ary at esperanto.org.ar> wrote in message 
news:jjne58$1ouf$1 at digitalmars.com...
> On 03/13/2012 02:14 AM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 10:35:54PM -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>>> "Jonathan M Davis"<jmdavisProg at gmx.com>  wrote in message
>>> news:mailman.572.1331601463.4860.digitalmars-d at puremagic.com...
>> [...]
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Personally, I disagree with the notion that non-JS versions are a
>>> "workaround".
>> [...]
>>
>> Me too. To me, non-JS versions are the *baseline*, and JS versions are
>> enchancements. To treat JS versions as baseline and non-JS versions as
>> "workaround" is just so completely backwards.
>
> While I don't agree that non-JS is the baseline (because most if not all 
> browsers come with JS enabled by default, so why would you want to disable 
> javascript for?), I'm starting to understand that providing both non-JS 
> and JS versions is useful.
>
> At least so that:
>  - Some users don't go mad when they can't use it, and then realise it's 
> because JS is disabled
>  - And for the above reason, not to loose reputation to those people :-P
>
> But if people didn't have an option to disable JS, we wouldn't have this 
> discussion.[...]
>

Bullcrap. If people didn't have an option to disable JS, there'd be a lot 
more people using *very* *VERY* old browsers, and that would piss of 
*cough*modern*cough* webdevs even more.

The problem isn't that JS *can* be disabled. Some people *just don't want 
it*:

When they disable JS, yea, ok, on *some* sites they get a *slighty worse* 
user experience with, say, posting a comment. But it *also* gives them a 
*far BETTER* user experience on all those sites that misuse and overuse JS. 
It also increases security. The idea that JS-enabled pages are "just simply 
better" is patently false: Yes, *some* are *slightly* better, but many are 
*much* worse (no matter how good their respective developers believe 
themselves to be. *Everyone* believes "Oh, well, when *I* use it, it works 
very well." I'm sure the Reddit developers have fooled themselves into 
thinking their site is reasonably fast).




More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list