Arbitrary abbreviations in phobos considered ridiculous

[Nick Sabalausky]

"Nick Sabalausky" <a at a.a> wrote in message 
news:jjo65v$305$1 at digitalmars.com...
> "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.

Oh, and with JS disabled, it's impossible for sites *cough*GitHub*cough* to 
break the back button.

>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).
>
>