Good developers can write websites that have non javascript fallbacks.
For example, a form to save settings with a save button, but when javascript loads it hides the save button and makes it automatically save when you toggle options.
this post was submitted on 12 Feb 2026
24 points (63.0% liked)
JavaScript
2657 readers
58 users here now
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
What is the site?
for like, a blog, I think that's an ok complaint to have.
I suspect it's this - https://bestestmotherfucking.website/
I also suspect both the site and that message are trolling
Small world-view moment
JavaScript was my first language because my initials are JS. After spending some time on programming.dev and seeing how many people bitch about JavaScript, I wrote a Python templating engine to convert Markdown into static HTML with CSS. I have like 10 lines of JavaScript that pre-populates a selector based on the URI's query string, but that's it. I got a perfect score on my Lighthouse report (and learns it gives you confetti when you do).
It took some creative problem solving, but I discovered that I didn't need like 99% of the JavaScript or PHP that I was using. What I needed was mostly to get good at CSS.
Isn't javascript the source of vulnerabilities in software? Enabling it is a security threat. This is victim blaming by whomever this woman is.
Basically everything is a security threat one way or another.
If you want other people to do things for you, it's a potential vulnerability, so if you don't want that, don't let people do things for you. But then don't complain that they aren't doing things.
Disabling JavaScript is a tradeoff, you trade off its conveniences for security and resource usage. But you can't have your cake and eat it too.
Got to disagree there. Websites should work without js. Sure it shouldn't have fancy animations or whatever but I should be able to read it.
Depends on what kind of website we are talking about.
If it's a website whose purpose to display an article or images or similar, I agree with you.
If its main purpose is something that requires interaction by the user (i.e. it's a "web app"), then it's not a reasonable expectation that it should work without JS, and then I agree with the OP.
If its main purpose is something that requires interaction by the user (i.e. it's a "web app"), then it's not a reasonable expectation that it should work without JS, and then I agree with the OP.
Web apps predate JavaScript by many years. The kids writing websites these days just don't know how.
Even "web apps" don't necessarily need javascript. Is a forum a web app? It has plenty of user interaction and forums without javascript have existed since before HTML. Even stuff like Mastodon doesn't necessarily need javascript, it can work as static pages.
I agree that these are more of a continuum than a binary.
E S O T E R I C
I hate this cursed timeline where even finding out the opening hours of a restaurant needs to load half a dozen frameworks.
I hate the padded aesthetic of everything. Like I use an old.reddit clone on lemmy cuz I just wanna access the content ffs.
I remember when webservers served content, and didn't just pass me megabytes of bloated spaghetti and say "here, YOU run this."
Static pages are fine if you don't want to interact with them. Books have been around since the 1400s.
But they won't let you search a whole book for particular name, place, term. Or take your input and calculate answers for you? Or let you create music or art? etc. etc.
You don't need that to search. In fact, you send the search query and get the response back.
Yes, they let you search the term, it's called asking the librarian to tell you which page.
Forms that send a post request to the server and the server serves you the page with the answer is how it works. Ajax is cool, sure, but don't tell us lies, or don't talk with confidence without knowing.
Y'all forget about forms? And, uh, programs?
I remember doing indexes in html with hyperlinks
This woman is part of the problem of the current internet. There are only a few sites that make sense to only work with JS enabled and federated social media is NOT one of those. Wanna know why? Because all the JS bullshit is just to make shit "pretty". The data isn't - rather, should NOT - reside entirely in the JS.
EDIT - To make matters worse, the site in question is this - https://bestestmotherfucking.website/ ; which is "inspired" by Motherfucking Website and Better Fucking Website. I'm thinking this is just trolling and we fell for it
So... there's a practical difference between rendering markup, which is handled by the browser engine and generally benign, and running executable script, which is frequently malicious.
Allowing your website to load JavaScript means that I'm allowing you to execute arbitrary code on my hardware. Hopefully the potential blast radius of any malicious code is limited by safety precautions in my web browser, but a web browser is not a security barrier and should not be relied on to protect the local system from malicious code downloaded from the Internet. The most pernicious and seemingly unavoidable behavior of JavaScript on most websites is device fingerprinting, and to get a better understanding of how much of a problem that is check out https://coveryourtracks.eff.org/
The simplest step to prevent a lot of this malicious behavior is to block executable script. This is not really a new thing on the Internet, as extensions like NoScript have been around for 2 decades and have millions of users. This should be anticipated by the web developer as a completely normal use case.
Competent web developers understand that they have privacy-conscious users who block external executable script as a matter of course. Your website(s) should be designed to account for this, and should at least render and display information in a readable way without needing to execute your un-vetted code on the user's system. Maybe some dynamic functions of the website don't work, but that's OK as long as the majority of the site is accessible. A JavaScript-dependent website is no better than a Flash-dependent website, in terms of security, privacy, and professionalism.
NoScript frames this as a consent issue, and that's probably valid:
NoScript enables consensual browsing: your browser, your choice!
I am not even a Web Dev. Just made a little profile site, which I didn't even complete.
And I tested it without JS.
Nope. Fuck your site.
So if for any chance you can't use JS (outdated browser, outdated system, text-based browser, JS disabled by an admin, JS won't load, assistive technology) then... it's your fault?
- outdated browser - your fault, and a foolish thing to use considering the modern, online threat landscape
- outdated system - your fault, and like above you probably shouldn’t connect to the internet with that thing
- text-based browser - your fault, and it shouldn’t surprise anyone that websites break when you use a browser that misses major functionality
- JS disabled by an admin - your admin’s fault. Go complain to them, not to anyone else
- JS won’t load - depends on reason for why JS fails to load
- assistive technology - depends on the reason; your assistive software may be broken or misconfigured, or the website fails to follow best practice
Braille interpreters (think a row of nubs that raises up the relevant letter as it "reads" the page) used to have issues with some webpages unless you accessed them via text based browsers. No idea if they still struggle as much but text based browsing will always have a function and place
So, if a webpage fails to load of Firefox it's our fault for not using Chrome? Following your logic.
Well, if we’ re following my logic, like you claim, then it depends on why the page is failing to load in Firefox: Are you using an outdated version of Firefox or on an outdated system? Is Firefox missing major functionality? Has your admin disabled major functionality in Firefox? Won’t some part of the website load in Firefox and if so, why? Are you using assistive technology in Firefox and if so, is it broken, misconfigured, or does the website not follow best practice?
If it is for another reason, then it obviously depends on that reason
Nono, you expect people to use the most used versions of the tools. Firefox has such a low usage that using the "Firefox version" of the "browser" tool can be interpreted as using an "outdated tool". You clearly don't, and neither do I, but some people put the line in a different place than you do and I don't think it's fair to say it's their fault for it.
Sure, for webpages where the objective is to have advanced functionality I do get it, but for news/blog posts, documentation, government pages that should be as robust as possible... There are paces where accessibility of "outdated" tools must be considered.
According to your logic, I can't blame you for believing that "news/blog posts, documentation, government pages [...] should be as robust as possible", but you also can't blame anyone else for interpreting objectives and functionality differently, and drawing the line elsewhere. Your post is a rhetorical suicide, and there is no point continuing this line of argument
Or what if you don't have internet? Is it your fault you can't access the website?
Also, if your browser does not support latest TLS and does not have latest root certificates, it's your fault. /s
Let me load HTTP without the S if I want to.
Let me load HTTP without the S if I want to.
No, that let's companies man-in-the-middle you.
ISPs literally couldn't help themselves inject ads and other scripts that lagged and broke everything on every website all to chase a few bucks.
HTTPS prevents them from doing that.
JavaScript has been my favorite language for a decade. Still, I try to make websites server-rendered so that they can be read if my code fails to load or execute. For example, there are power outages in Ukrainian cities for most of the day because of the war. When there's no power, there's still 4G for a while but it switches to economic mode and slows down to a crawl. The websites of the monopolist energy company require a lot of JavaScript. It often fails to load for me during the outage. It's also not keyboard-accessible because of how its JS is implemented (I won't image I'd do better, they have a team while I'm a solo programmer, but I try and they don't). For me to see when there will be electricity at what place and plan where to go study and work, I have to rent a VPS, scrape their website and show me a static table that doesn't require JS to load. Some code to see what I mean: https://codeberg.org/nykula/powerup
JavaScript has been my favorite language for a decade. Still, I try to make websites server-rendered so that they can be read if my code fails to load or execute
Have you tried Astro? It's good for exactly this. You write Astro components that look a little bit like React components, but they're all rendered either during the build (when using static site generation) or server-side.
You get the developer experience of a modern JS framework, with the output of a static site with minimal JS.
Yes, I tried multiple popular SSR frameworks and use one at work. As a hobby, I've been making my own SSR framework that is much more minimal, based on Preact, Valibot, Vite, node:sqlite, URLPattern, gettext.js and a few companion libraries. (But components look more like old-school Mithril than React because no JSX extension, just standard JS.) I want its node_modules to stay below 200 MB and to pick such dependencies that the apps built with it can be included in Debian repositories and potentially FreedomBox. Hopefully I'll be ready to make a fedi post about it next month.
Fuck this.
The state of the web, and software in general, is fucking abysmal. And it is in no small part due to this kind of shit. You want this recipe/news/whatever? Here is a hundred mbs of frameworks, trackers, spyware...
What's even the point nowadays when every website, sorry, 'wEb ApP' is going to make me install their crappy app to give me full functionality? Then the app is just a web view (when not a wrapped full fledged web browser) to present their shitty web but with more privileges.
The state of the web ... is fucking abysmal.
Like the whole rest of the world... that's the users' faults, not the developers.
No I'm not saying it's the developers' fault, they're not the people making these decisions, just building whatever they're paid for. But in this case it is this dev's own site, and they're defending their decision here.
The users..I don't know how much they (we) are to blame. We all end up succumbing to the pressure sooner or later, and even though I really wish more people would put a bit more of a fight, when I see myself using smartphones, lots of these apps, WhatsApp, windows at work... sometimes I think whether maybe the ones giving up early or just straight up embracing the crap are the wiser ones, because resistance does sometimes seem futile.
No I'm not saying it's the developers' fault, they're not the people making these decisions, just building whatever they're paid for.
That's fair and reasonable.
That said, I'm happy to also blame the developers.
I faced the same pressures, but I still learned my craft.
There's a difference between a website and a web app. Websites indeed should not require JavaScript to function. Web apps are a different beast where, yes, disabling JavaScript means you are opting yourself out of being able to use the app.
Yes yes a thousand times yes! The web exists to enable interaction more than cracking open a book or magazine. If all you're after is blogs, sure, turn it off.
Without JS, most webpages couldn't do 1/10th of what they do. There'd just be text and pictures. OK for fairytale books.
Most websites are just text and pictures..