How do we stop Javascript

don't use cancerous websites

But more and more websites are being taken over by CancerScript, so we need to do something about it, whether that is creating our own web separate from this one, or something else.

We would have to make a new scripting language. The idea of using someone else's resources to perform some computation is too alluring for these cheap ass web devs to not abuse.

I have no problem with Javascript, so long as it's only required via Progressive Enhancement.

Not a solution. Using a scripting language where it has no business being used is the entire problem.

This nigga gets it

Go drink beards somewhere else, Holla Forums would be hell to use without javascript.

You fucking idiot.

It's quite comfy without JS.

Make simple websites that do the same thing as whatever framework bloat that is, and only visit those. Hopefully everyone follows you and the cancer stops.

Start replacing the "normal" internet with TOR and Freenet.

At the moment comment systems are one of the very few places client side scripting has any business being used. But it's only because the HTML standard is lacking. Anchor tags should be able to target container tags on the current page to replace them and their contents with HTML fragments. If that was allowed there would be no excuse for javascript at all.

Okay, I agree with you. What's something small someone could start with, maybe even with very limited help? Reason being most of Holla Forums can't code, and the ones that can just get into arguments about logos and languages. I figure there must be a few bored people here who'd be able to start something.

Is it currently possible to do this? It's not like anyone else follows standards anyways.

It would be difficult to do so, because it is easy to sell "new features", and hard to tell people that their "features" are crap. One of the reasons browsers are so popular is because they offer the functionality of operating systems. To solve this, we either need to get non-shit computers on people's desks (not gonna happen) or re-design computer networks to be distributed like Plan 9.

The Web should just be a collection of simple text and image documents. Websites like Holla Forums should move to a different system and stop cluttering the Web.

But question is what?
Dropbox: index page is 4.7MB of bloat (holy shit), sort of replacement: catbox.moe (250KB) Back end size difference is probably even bigger. For most content static pages would be sufficient. Perhaps Holla Forums wiki would be nice to have (installgentoo wiki has issues - can't connect to db. it worked few months ago, maybe they're in the middle of updating). Stack overflow needs to be replaced as well or at least tell people to read official documentation, point them to good books. SO is probably one of the reasons why everything is so bloated (copy-paste without understanding a problem). A good wiki would really help a lot if people with knowledge in respective fields contributed content or links to other good resources. Here are examples of sites that there should be more of:
elm-chan.org/
textfiles.com/
jinteki.industries/
quux.org
wiki.c2.com/ (shame they load google botnet js on page)
catb.org/

Or we should move/add content to gopher. Web will only get worse.

Stack Overflow would be a hard thing to take down. They literally became big by being the shoulder to cry on when *insert forum for specific technology here* told them try and learn instead of expecting them to do their code for them. I agree, SO played a major role in software bloat. Half the answers you get for a problem regarding HTML is "You can use this JQuery code to do that. . ."

I think it might help to start brainstorming places that need to be replaced. I'm certain all of us can think of one cite that makes our blood boil because it does something in a really retarded way with Javascript.

Instead of just seeing the word gopher, I'm going to go check out what that is this time.

--How do we stop this Holla Forums?--
It's near impossible but here's what is need to be done.
Kill web designers.
Teach new future web designer real server side programing instead of speudo bs.
Remove all the corporate shills at W3C.
Tell retarded marketers that the way he want's a website to be is crap and he should kys if he ask again.

Since most live in California, either them seceding/sinking into the Ocean is a very possible, so maybe that problem will self correct, otherwise we need to make it very hard from them to do

Good idea, but we'll need a plan to have open discussion about what should be standards.

Standard 1: The web browser shall render text.
Standard 2: The web browser shall render images.
Standard 3: The web browser shall not under any circumstance execute code.

I like this, especially standard 3 since executing code goes against what a web browser was intended to do.

First of all, remove this retarded idea of anything else than text/images being handled. That includes videos and pdf; just give us a mailcap config file (w3m does it).

Actually while we're at it can we deprecate the entire .pdf file format completely? That shit is responsible for so much legacy-support-bloat it's insane.

Nice
One suggestion for number two:
The web browser shall render non animated images.
One suggestion for number three:
The web browser shall not under any circumstance execute code and scripts.

This

It has nothing to do with the web so sorry.
PDF isn't all bad has long has you stay with the standard but it's still useless imo.

No more no less is needed.

Don't use a negative in your standard. It's implied anything that's not mentioned isn't allowed. The first 2 are enough.

Videos are something you watch one at a time but gifs are not. They should be treated the same as images.

Agreed. Videos should be played offline in a video player. If you need a preview, then people should provide a smaller sample video, or a series of thumbnails. Same with audio lest we get idiots using tags like the did with midis in the 90s.

PDF makes no sense in 2017, so yes, it needs to go. One of the newer open standards should be used. Any of them since they're all better than PDF.

We need a standard that allows us to font and color settings we desire, this would also help with accessibility, so that's an added bonus.

But really like said, it's not part of the web, so it's outside the scope. I still agree that we should get rid of PDF.

I agree. That way we get to use the media players we want. Flash should have always been it's own offline application, not something added poorly to browsers. Dynamic animation is unnecessary and should be reserved for videos, so that works too.

Unnecessary. Games should be developed for the platform you are using, not emulated in a web browser. There are engines today that make cross platform development piss easy.

I'm torn with GIFs/APNGs myself. Technically they're video without audio, but if we allow them, people will start adding other things because "Oh well it's just like a gif". I think discussion is needed.

Negative's are allowed in the rfc2119
Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels
tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119
I suggest tho that we stick to the rfc2119.

Same
Well first we need to define what is a video/animation/image.
-Video:
A video requires a certain amount of images cadenced a certain speed + sound.
This is absolutely necessary in a browser and should be reserved for video players.
-Animation:
An animation is a certain amount of images cadenced a certain speed (minimum of 24fps).
-Image:
A single picture/photo.

Video can analyses be discarded because we have all the tools to read them but animations like GIFs/APNGs are really popular and basically one of the first things that was asked to be added to the W3C standard.
The border between video/animation is very thin but I think it should be rendered externally and not in the browser.

I'm eternally grateful that Holla Forums doesn't decide what goes into the internet.

install Links

Nigger it's not about what goes or what doesn't go on the web it's about what should a web browser do.
If someone wants to read a video or a gif they just select the link and the browser will ask with what software it should use to read it instead of re-inventing the wheel like modern web browsers do.
Web browser in their actual state are mostly the reason why is web is turning into DRM hell.
Modern web browser are very close to fucking operating systems which is alarming because it's the most insecure, slow and anti-freedom way to go.
And to counter that a we browser should only be what it was intended to be and that is to simply render text and images with a certain formatting.

These are decent standards ideas if you think about the end result. Basic HTML and some modestly aesthetic CSS is comfy to browse, but it's not ubiquitous enough to continuously do so.
t. tired of browsing the web with broken or incompatible javascripts.

GIFs reserved for external applications is a bit much. I'm not going to load up a video player to see some 1 second looping forum avatar.

Nigger it's not about what does or what doesn't go on the web it's about what should a web browser do.
If someone wants to read a video or a gif they just select the link and the browser will ask what software it should use to read it instead of re-inventing the wheel like modern web browsers do.
Web browser in their actual state are mostly the reason why is web is turning into DRM hell.
Modern web browser are very close to fucking operating systems which is alarming because it's the most insecure, slow and anti-freedom way to go.
A web browser should only be what it was intended to be and that is to simply render text and images with a certain formatting.

have you heard of 0x0.st ? the index page is just plaintext and you can only upload files with manual POST requests. the most autistic public file host I've found so far.

It seems it is.
>github.com/lachs0r/0x0

It seems it is.
>github.com/lachs0r/0x0

It seems it is.
>github.com/lachs0r/0x0

I think it's pretty important that the standard lay down the law firmly about what not to do, to prevent us repeating the mistakes of the past.

THOU SHALT NOT EXECUTE CODE IN THE CLIENT

Recall anti-features of web that can be done with standalone software, ship all browsers with said software as dedicated payload, not as "plugins".

And the holy words were spoken then applied and the web got 99% of all it's problem resolved.

Browsers have grown like a tumor to take over "standalone software". APIs for making a fucking GUI are so draconian and cumbersome that it's almost better to make your standalone app nothing more than a webkit (i.e. Chrome) wrapper around Javascript, HTML, and CSS, because trying to do ANYTHING in ANY of the operating systems graphically is a gigantic piercing migrane scalpel stabbing you in the dick and both balls at the same time.

So here's the browser. People have been using browsers for years and it's pretty fucking easy to get some visual style all laid out on it. The browser can even execute scripts too, so why not just take advantage of that easy GUI framework and cram all of your functionality into Javascript? Don't worry, it won't all be Javascript forever. Soon WebAssembly will let you write it in any language your heart desires. Who needs explorer, or GTK, or KDE, whatever the fuck OSX uses? Perfect cross-platform GUI capability already exists in HTML and CSS, and strap on some scripting to do all the number crunching and you've got yourself a genuine app. Hell because it's a browser it's even sandboxed from the rest of your machine too, how thoughtful for security? Why it's so great we're even making our text editors out of the stuff!

THOU SHALT NOT EXECUTE CODE IN THE CLIENT

This shows how bad current operating systems are at sandboxing applications. What conceptual difference is there between executing a program and executing a program in the browser? Fucking nothing, that's what. Doing it in the browser just adds a thick layer of convoluted slow bullshit to things.

And that "protection" only lasts for as long as we let it. Even now Google is making fucking god damn APIs that can access fucking god damn USB storage.

GUI Frameworks are a bit of mess, but if everyone knows at least one with all the quirks and the source to a project is open, there is no reason someone cannot add a specific toolkit as an option, so long as you have program logic documented enough.

If code is properly done, you have program logic decoupled from everything else. You add a GUI/TUI and then call the functions that deal with program logic from there.

This isn't that hard, it's just that some GUIs (Notoriously, Win32) are so shitty it makes it hard to actually do without using cheap hacks.

JavaScript is pretty cool actually. It's the code-fast-and-forget programming style forced on web developers plus people who actually just know HTML+CSS put into "front-side developer" positions that is the problem here.

Web frameworks too. Oh god make it stop, everyone just use Preact and shut the fuck up.

js is garbage. but you're right, the web would be shit regardless of what PL is used for making it interactive
literally who?

Libaray with a React compatible API that doesn't have a shitty license and is faster.

I'm fine with JS, but it shouldn't be required to view your fucking page, to post a comment on your shitty blog, or to even download a file. It also should not be used to write applications in browser, that's what a fucking OS is for.

This is why Rule 3 exists, because you can't trust dumbfucks.

...

I'm editing my browser

great idea!

Hey, this is pretty cool. I've been looking for file-hosting like this.

Qt is actually pretty easy. And it has a scripting language much like javashit that's pretty powerful.

...

But QT looks like shit, non-native
nobody serious would use QT for multi platform apps

How would you implement file upload progress without javascript?
Maybe built in into web browser or submit button?

Maybe use a file transfer protocol instead?

It's not

Nah, pic related describes that faggot better

QT is also much more bloated, and from what I recall, has tons of other annoyances, but the big one is how non-native is looks.

A better way would be to tell people if they want a specific toolkit, code in support themselves, make it an option at compile time, and then no more of this "muh gui toolkit" bullshit.

...

Make HTML actually useful, and then Javascript wouldn't be necessary. You faggot engineers live in a fantasy world where consumers prefer command prompts to images, audio, and video. It took decades just to get properly working and tags. It'll be another decade before you faggots come up with a simple way to vertically center a piece of text. tl;dr kill yourself, faggot

This so fucking much. I try to use pure JS when I have to use any JS (frontend developer here, it's shit but makes big bucks), and then when I search the internet for "js how to do something" ALL THE FUCKING ANSWERS ARE FUCKING JQUERY.

The only reason javascript flourished unopposed among the masses is because normies were taught that downloads and .exe's are malware-infested botnets, and that websites are safe because you're not downloading anything or running any programs. If it's slow, you get a new computer and you're done.

Still infinitely more readable than Realtek's "GPL-licensed" r8168 driver full of fucking hex.

Why not?

It's the smallest, well defined and least opinionated with good performance. Single file about 10kb. On opposite end you have Angular which requires pulling 200 megs of garbage off npm just to get "properly setup" (heavily opinionated) hello world plus mandatory typescript.

Having view controller and standard way to handle data bindings to-from template to javascript is very handy. That's why frameworks exist. I don't see why they should be humongous near-blackbox kitchen-sink installations like Angular. Do you?

Yes it is.

Uh oh! Wolfram|Alpha doesn't run without JavaScript

Flexbox can vertically center a piece of text no problem. Works on every browser released since at least mid 2012, maybe even before that.

Other then that, people want too, but ever since the browser wars in the 90s the W3C has cucked it. Had Netscape devoted more time to implementing useful shit instead of , maybe we could have.

My TI-84 Calculator doesn't need JS.

would it really be a bad idea to implement a discrete video player that can embed itself in a document and resize itself accordingly? Did all that work on CSS go to waste? Does Holla Forums just want to use a hyperlinked .odt reader?

This. That's the fault of Internet Explorer mostly, because it was easier to just believe jQuery would mitigate the cross-browser hell somehow (it didn't).

I started to laugh at the funny joke but then I realized that this is basically what all single-page-apps with built-in routing do. Take HTML template and render it on the screen without ever actually changing the "route".

If you ask me, whenever I click an .mp4 or .webm link, I have the browser set to open videos in system media player. That's because one of my computers is a weak-ish laptop. And the one that isn't (gaming computer) had poor playback in-browser anyways for mp4 or extremely compressed webm's that play perfectly fine in the system media player. E.g low frame rates, or "frozen frame" while audio still plays after seeking.

So
maybe.
Web development strikes an impression of a lot of wasted development I think. Not just this case though.

>I

Found the JS coder.

Build a search engine that exclusively indexes non-js websites or as an optional filter against js websites.

first reply already answered the question
why are you fags still replying????????

...

This is the only way to get rid of 90% of JS. There needs to be extensions to HTML that allow similar functionality to things like how on image boards, reply posts pop up when you hover over the post number.

I'm positive you can implement that functionality using nothing but HTML and CSS. It won't be PRETTY, it won't be EASY, but it's possible.

I also don't like the idea of programs (web server and browser) communicating to each other in markup language.
I don't get why so many here are hostile to binary formats for communicating between programs. Especially if it's not code being sent, as we are discussing here.

Well I guess URLs aren't markup, but they are still ugly imo, especially how they are used presently.

That's because a website is not a program. It is a document.

Read by a browser in a form (markup language) meant for human readability.
It's just gross.