@gudenau 
@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.
@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).
This Mastodon instance is for people interested in technology. Discussions aren't limited to technology, because tech folks shouldn't be limited to technology either!