Arbitrary abbreviations in phobos considered ridiculous

[Nick Sabalausky]

"Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisProg at gmx.com> wrote in message 
news:mailman.572.1331601463.4860.digitalmars-d at puremagic.com...
> 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.
>

Personally, I disagree with the notion that non-JS versions are a 
"workaround".