[ot] Re: D hidden features topic for StackOverflow

[Nick Sabalausky]

"Jarrett Billingsley" <jarrett.billingsley at gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:mailman.238.1222220079.19733.digitalmars-d at puremagic.com...
> On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 9:00 PM, Nick Sabalausky <a at a.a> wrote:
>> "BCS" <ao at pathlink.com> wrote in message
>> news:78ccfa2d327f38caeb130eba3eae at news.digitalmars.com...
>>> Reply to Nick,
>>>
>>>
>>>> Meh, stack overflow needs to die a swift death. OpenID-only login,
>>>> modal dhtml "dialog boxes" (WTF were people thinking when they first
>>>> created these?!?!), and complety Ajax (I *HATE* Ajax).
>>>>
>>>
>>> you don't even need to log in and it works without JavaScript at all. 
>>> (or
>>> it's suposed to do that, havent tried it my self)
>>>
>>
>> Maybe it's just because it's beta, but when I was there, attempting to 
>> vote
>> on anything resulted in a "you must log in to vote" message, and 
>> disabling
>> javascript resulted in a "This site requires javascript" header strip.
>
> I wasn't aware that disabling javascript was really a reasonable
> option these days.  There goes, like, almost every site, ever.

Which is very unfortunate in my opinion. Actually, that very fact is *the* 
single reason I've reluctantly started leaving JS turned on in my browser by 
default instead of leaving it off by default. If Firefox or IE had the JS 
(and process-orientation) from Google Chrome (I'm not about to use Chrome 
for daily browsing as it is right now), then I *might* sort of change my 
mind on my whole "JS is evil crap" a little bit (though still not entirely - 
like Flash, it's one of those things that just *begs* to be abused - and 
that's a dangerous thing considering the quality of most web developers 
these days. Shit, it used to be that you had to actually know what you were 
doing before getting hired to write code...[unintelligible old-man mumbling 
here...]).