If you are here to learn something about Javascript, read the MDN article about the "Number" type instead.

More reasons to not use JavaScript I guess.

Progressive enhancement really is a lost art huh

You missed the point completely, though - you should not expect every user to have a shiny updated browser in a shiny new machine using your website, and blaming them if they don't.

If you want your website being able to be used by most of users, you better cover all use cases. That includes providing non-js fallbacks. Not doing that and blaming the users instead is just ridiculous.

how wrong you are. Most webpages don't have to do client side computation. Its all fancy ajax anyway.

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.

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.

I suspect it's this - https://bestestmotherfucking.website/

I also suspect both the site and that message are trolling

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.

Small world-view moment

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

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.

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

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.

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.

So, if a webpage fails to load of Firefox it's our fault for not using Chrome? Following your logic.

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

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.

I remember doing indexes in html with hyperlinks

Isn't javascript the source of vulnerabilities in software? Enabling it is a security threat. This is victim blaming by whomever this woman is.

Y'all forget about forms? And, uh, programs?

Most websites are just text and pictures..

The state of the web ... is fucking abysmal.

Like the whole rest of the world... that's the users' faults, not the developers.

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.