1) It's irrelevant since it's the only language we have on the browser.
2) I think this is actually a cultural problem. Are users steering away from overcomplex/bloated/intrusive websites? If not, why not?
3) That's an argument similar to should a site support IE8? IMO it really boils down to the cost vs the benefit of supporting user without JS. And that of course will depend on your target users.
> 1) Using JavaScript is insecure: Without doubt JS had security holes in the past, and they continue to show up.
Those are browser vulnerabilities, not JavaScript vulnerabilities, you should have seen the same happen with PDF, these are browser bugs, they get patched. Example: if your break malfunctions in your car, you'd get it fixed instead of replacing your car with a bike.
> 2) JavaScript is a privacy threat: This has a lot to do...
Native applications can also do that. Here you could easily write a browser extension to disable mouse tracking or whatever you wish, you don't get this so easy anywhere else.
> 3) JavaScript saves bandwidth: I think that not so much because of the initial load of a webpage. JS enables a webpage to costantly query back to the server. An example is gmail, and the notification for a new email, while you are logged into gmail.
If you do this correctly you could mostly get away with few bytes per request. You can't do this without JS.
The JavaScript annoyance will always be a part of web development at this point, but I really don't see why so many people use these single-page applications and require JavaScript to perform simple tasks.
Thank you for making these points, I'm just disappointed at how often they need repeating for some people, do you know of a website that explains the reasoning behind not relying 100% on JavaScript for your website?
There's motherfuckingwebsite.com but the tone of that site is very adversarial, I think one that lays out the reasoning in a noncombative way would be more successful at reaching some of these people.
All of the websites in the top-row require JS, so I stopped looking at that point. To me, requiring JS is not minimalist, and those random sites aren't important enough for me to enable JS on them.
I build plenty of CSS only sites without any JS just fine. I avoid using it as much as I can and generally only need it for forms or galleries, occasionally some ajax stuff.
At the start of the article they do state that you might need javascript. The point was to show off things you can do without javascript, not say that you never need it.
My feeling is that asking for a site that works without Javascript is like asking for a car with a manual transmission. Sure, it's possible to get it, but it costs more and a lot of models simply don't have it. Why? Because then you have to double your testing time -- you have to test every operation with and without (stickshift/javascript).
Almost no one wants a JS free website (or a car with a manual), so it just isn't worth the development effort to effectively build two versions of your car/site.
2. That would imply you like your documentation entirely on one page. Anyway, that's why there is a search box...
3. Nonsense.
reply