Follow

Dunno why everyone thinks that the web in the 90’s was a pure place we need to return to. It’s like a prelapsarian ideal that never existed, but that nerds can’t help but pine for (sorry, but I’m afraid that JavaScript *does* exist lol)

I know why, I’m just complaining about everyone being unreasonable.

I heard of this thing, called DHTML. It’s basically HTML+CSS but you also use JavaScript to modify the DOM and styling. Seems promising!

@ashfurrow uMatrix/noscript is a good enough medium between "turn off all javascript" and "allow everything". It's my version of "reasonable" for my web browser.

(I'll admit I basically don't know anything about javascript beyond how it's been abused to make me suffer.)

@ashfurrow I prefer the alternate timeline where webpages are actually just LuaTeX documents

@ashfurrow 99% of JavaScript isn't needed though.

For some things is needed sure.

@gudenau like, is that 99% that gets downloaded? That gets ran? That gets written? What does “needed” mean? These are all interesting questions, but “99% of JS isn’t needed” shuts down those conversations, IMO.

@ashfurrow It was an exaggeration. A lot of it is for tracking, weird page animations, advertising, overriding browser behaviors, DOM stuff that really should be done by the server.

Maybe not 99%, but darn is a lot of it not needed because of server side languages, CSS and HTML.

@gudenau advertising sucks, ad tracking sucks, totally agreed. Those things are incidental to JS, and are enabled by any kind of client-side scripting. At the same time, client-side scripting also opens up a lot of other, more productive possibilities. I think anti-JS advocates discount the value of those possibilities, to create new user experiences, new art, new forms of storytelling, etc.

@ashfurrow I never said it didn't have a place, Mastodon is an example where it's needed. It's just the fact that there's so much where it shouldn't be wasting so many resources in clients. You can make a good looking and functional website without any of it.

@gudenau no on is disputing that sites *can* be made without JS. the question is: how much is too much? and the answer I hear a lot from folks on Mastodon is “any JS is too much”, which I disagree with.

@ashfurrow For me too much is when you're using it for things that HTML and CSS cover. Like hover animations and image loading are things I've seen with JavaScript that are handled by CSS and HTML.

@gudenau I have to disagree – there is overlap in what HTML/CSS and JS can handle, which makes which one to use a matter of trade offs rather than a correct/incorrect choice. For example, I think that CSS animations work best when used in combination with JS DOM manipulations (adding classes, etc).

@ashfurrow The early 90s _was_ pre surveillance capitalism, so it had that going for it.

@rochelimit aye, but I don’t see one as causing the other. They are co-incidental to one another, like how I am to the rise and fall of 90’s Newfoundland darlings Great Big Sea.

Surveillance capitalism sucks big time.

@ashfurrow For me, it's not about JavaScript, but about the spirit of community I found in the web back then. Nowadays, there is an abundance of communication tools online, but community is just not there. Everyone keeps bashing each other instead. 😅

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mastodon for Tech Folks

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!