If you start with such crippling dogma, it's going to be hard to get anywhere. There's nothing non-free about javascript, and it absolutely improves UX.
We eventually want to make our forge work without JavaScript at all, for an A rating on the GNU ethical criteria
If you start with such crippling dogma, it's going to be hard to get anywhere. There's nothing non-free about javascript, and it absolutely improves UX.
I assume their goal is to make it possible to use their forge without Javascript, not to avoid using Javascript entirely, as they also discuss licensing considerations for Javascript. The GNU...
I assume their goal is to make it possible to use their forge without Javascript, not to avoid using Javascript entirely, as they also discuss licensing considerations for Javascript.
The GNU project has an article about licence concerns with Javascript. As is rather typical for them, they combine rather reasonable points with an approach to addressing them that seems likely to be dismissed by many as annoying (writing a browser extension to intentionally cripple Javascript that doesn't include their preferred licensing comment style, and encouraging users to send their manifesto to websites), even if it may be one of the few approaches that would actually have a chance of making the problem better known.
Does that mean we should refrain from using JavaScript entirely? That's a bit like saying that since a lot of software is proprietary, we should refrain from using computers entirely.
Does that mean we should refrain from using JavaScript entirely?
That's a bit like saying that since a lot of software is proprietary, we should refrain from using computers entirely.
That doesn't force any given new code to be written the same way, though. And it really doesn't take that much JavaScript at all to get nearly all the benefit of the 10-ton heavyweight sites. I've...
That doesn't force any given new code to be written the same way, though. And it really doesn't take that much JavaScript at all to get nearly all the benefit of the 10-ton heavyweight sites. I've got a site that's almost entirely plain HTML, with JavaScript being used to enhance a few areas to avoid taking users out of the "flow" of things, split up into a handful of small files, each easy to read with a single, clear purpose. Someone could audit all the JavaScript in maybe 10 minutes.
Bullshit practices in JS use are just that: practices. Google gets away with it – along with many other companies – because it's too big to be swayed by such things as the ideals of the Open Web....
Bullshit practices in JS use are just that: practices. Google gets away with it – along with many other companies – because it's too big to be swayed by such things as the ideals of the Open Web. Many developers not involved in those companies would be eager to criticize such an approach.
(Minification is mostly a remnant of the past today. Modern servers and browsers have layers of protocols that enable extensive compression of data between the server and the user. The whole Intergrid app gets compressed from ~50kB to ~10kB when sent to the user, with no harm to performance. It's amazing.)
There is a growing movement among web developers and designers to move away from restrictive, punitive practices towards a modern, accessible, easy-to-use, lightweight Web that relies on open-source software. Dark patterns is mostly a Silicon Valley thing where work ethic is pushed aside for the next buck in one's pocket.
If you start with such crippling dogma, it's going to be hard to get anywhere. There's nothing non-free about javascript, and it absolutely improves UX.
I assume their goal is to make it possible to use their forge without Javascript, not to avoid using Javascript entirely, as they also discuss licensing considerations for Javascript.
The GNU project has an article about licence concerns with Javascript. As is rather typical for them, they combine rather reasonable points with an approach to addressing them that seems likely to be dismissed by many as annoying (writing a browser extension to intentionally cripple Javascript that doesn't include their preferred licensing comment style, and encouraging users to send their manifesto to websites), even if it may be one of the few approaches that would actually have a chance of making the problem better known.
Oh, right, I misread it. That's a much more reasonable goal (although not really necessary IMHO, as long as accessibility concerns are met).
Does that mean we should refrain from using JavaScript entirely?
That's a bit like saying that since a lot of software is proprietary, we should refrain from using computers entirely.
That doesn't force any given new code to be written the same way, though. And it really doesn't take that much JavaScript at all to get nearly all the benefit of the 10-ton heavyweight sites. I've got a site that's almost entirely plain HTML, with JavaScript being used to enhance a few areas to avoid taking users out of the "flow" of things, split up into a handful of small files, each easy to read with a single, clear purpose. Someone could audit all the JavaScript in maybe 10 minutes.
Bullshit practices in JS use are just that: practices. Google gets away with it – along with many other companies – because it's too big to be swayed by such things as the ideals of the Open Web. Many developers not involved in those companies would be eager to criticize such an approach.
(Minification is mostly a remnant of the past today. Modern servers and browsers have layers of protocols that enable extensive compression of data between the server and the user. The whole Intergrid app gets compressed from ~50kB to ~10kB when sent to the user, with no harm to performance. It's amazing.)
There is a growing movement among web developers and designers to move away from restrictive, punitive practices towards a modern, accessible, easy-to-use, lightweight Web that relies on open-source software. Dark patterns is mostly a Silicon Valley thing where work ethic is pushed aside for the next buck in one's pocket.