> I want it recorded that this is dumb and unnecessary.
But it's not that simple. Some uses of javascript genuinely add value - even to content sites. The real discussion is about cost vs benefit not "All interactivity is bad".
But we do need some (I'd say, a lot) back-pressure against laziness and fashion that creates that unneccessary JavaScript.
Being JS-heavy is something I found to be correlated with poor/untrustworthy content and someone trying to make money off you. I'm of course not talking about web applications here (like GMail or Google Docs) but web pages, which after all "should be text communicating a fucking message"[0].
I don't disagree at all. I'd probably agree with the statement that most sites would be better without most of their 'enhancements'.
I just don't want the HN party line to become a knee-jerk "all js on content sites is bad".
I'm a big fan of pjax etc as it can really speed up page load without any downside (assuming it's been implemented well). If the UX is good, performance are as fast or faster as a plain HTML site, everything is bookmarkable and you don't break my back-button then go crazy.
I've yet to see any. It used to be necessary for drop down menus, but now CSS does that. When I browse with javascript off, it's only crap sites that break, and often the same ones loaded down with tracking cookies, 3rd party CDNs, facebook/google plus/twitter buttons, popups and whatever other crap. Interesting, that...
But it's not that simple. Some uses of javascript genuinely add value - even to content sites. The real discussion is about cost vs benefit not "All interactivity is bad".
Shades of grey, dear sir. Shades of grey...