I fucking hate websites that refuse to show their content unless you enable their JS clusterfuck. Yes I am blocking JavaScript because I'm sick of all those goddamn frameworks from God knows what domain. IS THAT FUCKING WRONG?!! I don't hate front-end devs, in fact I respect them for keeping up with design needs of shitty clients. But that fucking Web 2.0 with 50 frameworks per tab and no HTML or even PHP whatsoever for those who block your JS crap.. shove it right up your fucking ass!!!

There goes progressive enhancement :D

Sorry, web1.0 shipped out long ago.

Today web2.0 insists on dynamically loaded content for “- - insert UX reasons - -“

Life was so much easier back then 😔
What if I only have G analytics for “company reasons” but nothing else tracking you?

Tempted to bite the bait reading the comments, but I feel I've addressed people whining about the marquee tag and tables times enough by now.

@C0D4 I'm okay with Google Analytics - I'm mostly blocking that anyway. And most of the sites that use only that as a remote resource seem to be pretty good. If only more front-end chaps were like that...

@JoshBent I agree, tables and marquees are just as bad. But making your entire website in JavaScript? Come on, that's not how the web's supposed to work either.

@Condor I know that extremes like visiting angulars website with no js displays a white page is bad (wonder if a simple server side render would solve that), but I can't imagine building a site without JavaScript anymore, it's simply much harder or near impossible depending on the task.

@Condor I agree mostly, beyond a basic session cookie, potentially load balancer cookies, and maybe a preferences cookie, but that should be really DBS based, what more do you actually need to put into the users browser.

I, at worst load up G analytics but from a business perspective, it’s a lot easier to drop 1 line of JS into the template then to write your own analytics platform, plus if you do block it, it’s not the end of the world. 😎

@JoshBent most certainly, especially for responsive design and interactivity. Or even just offloading certain work from the server to the client, JavaScript is super useful. But basic layout, text, content, images, everything static.. that's what HTML and CSS are for, right? Disabling JS comes paired with usability issues and I'm okay with that, but not being able to use the website at all.. that's what grinds my gears so much. I mean something like Google Maps obviously needs a lot of JS, but something like say the WiFi Pineapple wiki?

@Condor welp darren had a boring hotel stay then probably

The dynamic structure of some of the platforms I work on kinda need Javascript to function. For example; I'm an absolute lover of Vue.. so if that aids in developing my front-end based on an API, that just makes it more manageable than spouting bloated HTML view files with programmed conditions in between. It does make my life a lot easier to use such libraries, and the website all the more responsive and fast as it only needs to load partials and thus not apply a whole lot of uncachable statements..

Separation of concerns is a big ++ to me, and thus why not use what is available for me to abide this? :(

JavaScript shouldn't be an issue on well designed websites as it's usually just one framework you need and if done correctly it can be light af.

I'm currently working with static HTML and Bootstrap but recently I needed to add some dynamic content to a template and included a tiny bit of Vue, light and fast people won't even notice it.

Because the web is designed for users, not for devs like you

I *used* to browse the web like this as well, but in the last 5 or so years it's become impossible. You're simply not catered for if you don't have JS enabled.

@SauceBoss oh yeah, that's just fucking evil! It's maddening when people abuse JS like that.

@rsync on Tor, JavaScript is indeed not very common.. come to think of it, even DDG, Not Evil and @Linux' searx instance all work entirely on HTML, with the search result rendering probably being done on server. Even Facebook has a (stripped) version of itself available that doesn't need any JS after login. So why isn't the rest of the web like that?

@JKyll that's how every website should be.. but unfortunately that's far from the case 😔

@xewl I get that, but the <noscript> part shouldn't be just a dick move "Needs JavaScript to function". Why not let the server render it then instead? There's quite a few use cases where JavaScript isn't just blocked, but where it's unsupported entirely. Think wget, curl, elinks and whatnot. And of course the Tor Browser which comes with NoScript by default.

@Condor In that case, I'd present you the actionable API instead of the front-end, so I guess that's all good :)

@xewl API's are great to have around, especially for frequently used stuff 😁

There are two types of assholes doing that crap:

The first are shithead designers who get a boner that abusing JavaScript instead of going for CSS gives IE7 boxshadow on Windows XP machines.

The second are clickbait wankers who don't actually have content, but try to lure visitors on their shitty sites for making ad $$$, and all their tracking fuckups also use JS, so they want to force visitors to endure that crap. "News" sites mostly fall in this shit category.

The only working cure for both kinds of idiots are oversized butt plugs made of ginger.

Thanks God, someone talked the truth

Nothing wrong with that. Disabling JavaScript is probably the smartest thing you can do, if you care about security at all.