Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon. Entire thread

Javascript is truly a cancer.

Name: Anonymous 2017-07-17 11:43

And I'm not saying that because of those cute ``animations'' & ``interactivity'' people do with it, but aids like this: http://wiki.c2.com/?ClosuresConsideredHarmful

What the hell compels people to make JS used to display their site???
It just seems like a very bad design choice and would affect their site's usability, yet I see this a lot.

Name: Anonymous 2017-07-17 11:49

>>1 This is not the right place to complain
https://github.com/WardCunningham/remodeling/issues

Name: Anonymous 2017-07-17 11:57

>>2
I'm not complaining about that site, but about this trend of sites that completely break without javashit.

Name: Anonymous 2017-07-17 12:05

>>3
Web is switching to dynamic model of representation.
Web1.0 static HTML
Web2.0 interactive, mostly static HTML4
Web3.0 fully dynamic, interactive HTML5 Apps.
Basically websites are replaced with JavaScript apps.

Name: Anonymous 2017-07-17 12:06

And Scientists are replaced with Artists.

Name: Anonymous 2017-07-17 12:17

>>4
Pretty much this.

Name: Anonymous 2017-07-17 14:28

>>4
What is the point of using Javascript to display something as simple as plain text that never changes? Why is there an obsession with making every site reliant on dependencies from Google? Why can't I click a link or submit a form without enabling Javascript?

Name: Anonymous 2017-07-17 14:38

>>7
What is the point of using Javascript to display something as simple as plain text that never changes?
To create fully dynamic, interactive websites.

Why is there an obsession with making every site reliant on dependencies from Google?
To save bandwidth. However, the thought that the website they're using as a CDN might serve some malicious scripts instead, never crosses their mind it seems.

Why can't I click a link or submit a form without enabling Javascript?
Because you're not the target audience for those websites. They know that only maybe 2% of the people who'd arrive at their site have JS turned off, so why bother working to make a JS-free version to them?
"Why don't they make it JS-free from the beginning"? See above. Web 3.0 is hip new thing.

Name: Anonymous 2017-07-17 16:31

Web 3.0 is the future, goyim.
Even 2ch has taken steps to add javascript everywhere. Have you seen their hip new quote hover preview?!

Name: Anonymous 2017-07-18 3:34

http://wiki.c2.com/?GreatLispWar
http://wiki.c2.com/?JavaScriptFlaws

http://c2.com/cgi/fullSearch?search=javascript
268 pages found out of 36852 pages searched.

I bet it beats having 37000 .html files

Name: Anonymous 2017-07-18 5:47

>>10
It has its drawbacks: most bots and programs work on text only data.
Web Archives, caches,proxies etc strip out or disable javascript

Name: Anonymous 2017-07-18 6:29

Web Archives, caches,proxies etc strip out or disable javascript
Wouldn't they do the same for whichever other embedded client-side executable?

Name: Anonymous 2017-07-18 6:34

>>12
Its from time where JS was considered a non-essential component of the web and today it increases security(cf. NoScript).

Name: Anonymous 2017-07-18 7:21

Javascript has been fairly safe though most of the time
Minified js is horrific and should throw errors

Name: Anonymous 2017-07-18 7:27

// Perform matrix multiplication on 2 matrices of size 512 x 512
var C = mat_mult(A, B);

CPU: 3.969s ±0.8%

GPU: 0.108s ±2.9% (36.65 times faster!)
Benchmarks provided by benchmark.js

Name: Anonymous 2017-07-18 7:28

>>14
>Javascript has been fairly safe though most of the time
Thousands of exploits and XSS vulnerabilities, hacks and compromised servers/users say otherwise.
I can't think of bigger attack surface on the web than client-side execution of code. Flash is dead, Java is deprecated. Only JS remains.

Name: Anonymous 2017-07-18 9:06

>>17
Most attacks would be defined by running code client-side, it's not really possible to run hacks on other machines locally?

Name: Anonymous 2017-07-18 9:14

The suit alleged that, in what was dubbed the "WebcamGate" scandal, the schools secretly spied on the students while they were in the privacy of their homes.
The lawsuit was filed after 15-year-old high school sophomore (second year student) Blake Robbins was disciplined at school, for his behavior in his home.
On October 2010, the school district agreed to pay $610,000 to settle the Robbins and Hasan lawsuits against it.[1] The settlement must be approved by Judge DuBois, who could also make his injunction barring the district from secretly tracking students permanent.[118] The settlement also includes $175,000 that will be placed in a trust for Robbins and $10,000 for Hasan. The attorneys for Robbins and Hasan get $425,000.

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robbins_v._Lower_Merion_School_District

Name: Anonymous 2017-07-18 10:27

>it's not really possible to run hacks on other machines locally
What are game hacks, DRM exploits, cracks of Copyprotection,etc

Name: Anonymous 2017-07-18 10:41

>>17
you can't do a server-side attack on a client-side code. but don't underestimate client-side attacks: cookie stealing used to be a canonical examples how you could use an XSS vulnerability to get web admin credentials and escalate from there.

Name: Anonymous 2017-07-18 12:06

>>20
I'm kind of using a loose definition of client-side, an internet server would count as a client/receiver to the localhost/server/haxor machine

I'd still tend to argue that most web attacks fall into either remote code execution or software bug category

Name: Anonymous 2017-07-18 12:26

>>21
but what does it change? other than the fact that I just hacked myself a sweet pair of dubs

Name: Anonymous 2017-07-18 14:03

>>22
Could you be a bit more vague please

Name: Anonymous 2017-07-18 14:09

Go back to sleep echelon, false alarm

Name: Anonymous 2017-07-18 14:24

▀▄▀▄▀▄▀ DEFCON i ▄▀▄▀▄▀▄

Name: Anonymous 2017-07-18 14:37

plot plot plot

Name: Anonymous 2017-07-19 0:33

Possible Spaced-based psy-weapons detected!

Name: Anonymous 2017-07-19 1:33

but aids like this: http://wiki.c2.com/?ClosuresConsideredHarmful
I agree, C2 is AIDS. Like TV Tropes and /r/programming had gay sex with each other.

Name: Anonymous 2017-07-19 1:35

>>28
it's actually a pretty good site
a real treasure from the old days

Name: Anonymous 2017-07-19 1:46

>>29
Sure thing, reddit/b/ro. Upboats for the epic reference ;)

Name: Anonymous 2017-07-19 2:37

I expected the article to be about closures being harmful because of JS, but I couldn't even read it because of JS.

Name: Anonymous 2017-07-19 17:36

>>2

https://github.com/WardCunningham/remodeling/issues/18#issuecomment-274288732

Includes a shitty python localhost proxy allowing you to use lynx, curl, etc. to get something kinda-working without JS.

The link to http://wiki.c2.com/?AccessibleWebPageDesign is somewhat relevant.

Also points to a static mirror: https://imode.gitlab.io/projects/c2/

Name: Anonymous 2017-07-19 17:37

Also, dubs

Name: Anonymous 2017-07-19 17:48

>>32
>static
Takes 3 minutes to load: 100% CPU.

Name: Anonymous 2017-07-20 1:42

>>34
works fine for me.

Name: Anonymous 2017-07-20 2:07

>>31
It's not about JS and the article is quite bad, actually. You're better off not reading it.

Name: Anonymous 2017-07-20 2:25

>>36
Most articles are written from the perspective of enterprise appers with design-pattern mentality.
Newer Posts
Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List
All trademarks and copyrights on this site are owned by their respective parties. All comments and posts are the responsibility of their own posters.
- Tinychan + 2ch Mode + RSS -