>go to web page to read article that is just text and a few images
>nothing loads, just a big announcement that THIS PAGE REQUIRES JAVASCRIPT (to display text and images in a single column)
>look at noscript's blocked list
>there's a shit load
>top one is the one for the domain I wish to view
>enable that one
>reloads
>page is now totally blank
Can we talk about how, despite operating systems and programs being far more bloated than they need to be, the web is in a much worse state?
>>53803703
OP answer your own question
Do you spend any time optimizing your programs or code for CPU cycles or RAM usage?
That's right, no one does anymore, because the blame has been shifted to the consumer
>>53803718
>no one does anymore
Speak for yourself, you fat lazy cunt.
>>53803725
kek
>>53803718
I'm pretty sure no one blames Grandpa for shitty software or infrastructure.
>>53803703
>Can we talk about how, despite operating systems and programs being far more bloated than they need to be, the web is in a much worse state?
The thing is, if I have a bloated program that is twice the size it should be, it will barely affect CPU usage. The bloated code will simply not execute, only take up RAM. Now, web page on the other hand, the browser has no way of knowing what JS is relevant or not, so it will simply execute all of it
>>53803703
no one notices OP because they browse with 5682 cores and 160GB DDR9000 RAM the utter CUNTS
if you don't load javascript, you are stealing content and should be sued by the IRCops
>>53803777
That makes me think. There's all this charity work to get third world countries online and with computers, yet all the software and internet is far too fat for the machines and connections that they have.
You'd think there'd be a set of web standards to account for this, or at least the push for one, but people just seem fine to let it get fatter and fatter.
>>53803703
>site names aren't indicative
>start enabling them in a "which is least likely to be botnet" fashion one by one
>final one, it's something that looks shady as fuck
>enable
>everything works
>>53803829
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2816%2930054-X/abstract
Op fix your pc you twat.
>using noscript
>wondering why no scripts are loading
Literally kill yourself.
>>53803874
>scripts are required for text and images
>>53803903
>op said that his page was blank
>>53803937
Yes. I saw that.
Again.
>scripts are required for text and images
The green-texting was to highlight what a silly thing you said. You should not need a tree of javascripts to display what was visible on a BBS with some jpgs in between.
>it's one of those 1 page websites
>it's one of those lazy loading websites
Whoever came up with this should burn in hell.
>>53804035
>about to click the next page button
>it runs away like those blue shits from Spyro
Bugger that nonsense.
>>53803765
Nope. If it executed every LOC you'd have event handlers firing randomly.
the web is in a fucking horrible state. I run a 4th gen i7 and I still run across websites that have laggy scrolling. Because the dev doesn't know what a fucking profiler is and thinks CSS shadows and animations are so rad
2 0 1 6
0
1
6
>>53804299
OH FUCK, NAMES
APRIL FOOLS MOTHERFUCKERS
>this guy
I was literally just saying this, the current state of the web is a fucking joke, even for manageable websites, don't even get me started on bullshit news websites that have an article divided up into eight sub domains to maximize their impressions for ad revenue
>>53803703
It's all idiot designers, and people who know better but want to sell you ads. Static-generated or hand written pages load goddamn near instantly but everything is this over engineered pile of shit or WordPress loaded down with more plugins than a dozen Firefox installs. I use Pelican for my blog and it looks pretty (modern CSS and a bit of client side JS) while still degrading cleanly all the way to an 80x24 text browser.
>>53804343
I fucking despise this. Splitting up paragraphs into separate pages to falsely jack up click count is possibly in the top ten most cancerous web trends of the 10's.
>>53803978
>You should not need a tree of javascripts to display what was visible on a BBS with some jpgs in between.
Speaking of which, if you set up a 4chan Pass you can actually browse 4chan in text mode: everything but animated gifs and webms works in w3m with image support.
>>53804363
Nice, I like the idea of static site generation. I finally read the reason markdown exists. It's text formatting that can also be read as plain text, without the HTML parsing. The syntax make so much sense now
>Google static site generation
>"It's going to be a big thing"
>Read what it actually is
Why the fuck isn't this what people did in the first place?
>>53805299
There's been a major shift to static blogging among people who actually know their ass from a hole in the ground when it comes to computers. Blogging from your favorite text editor is love, and you can have one command to compile and publish.
A lot of people are too stupid to use static site generators properly and so we got GUIs like cPanel and WordPress, with all the bloat and security vulnerabilities they entail.
>>53805299
I think it's that too many sites have always-dynamic content. For example a forum that has your username shown at the top. Maybe that can be static-ified? I dunno, haven't every used a static engine.
>>53805473
It could be something that gets caught and sent server-size. If it detects a logon cookie, it displays the username that cookie is tied to.
And I can't believe I just defended the use of cookies...
>>53803703
why do we need to talk about it? What about java scares you so badly? Is it the fear of tracking, or the security risks it introduces? I'm not a poorfag so my computer doesn't halt when a web page loads anything but HTML5 like some of you, but I guess that machine slow down might also be a downside. Someone give me like a real full argument as to why java(script) is shit.
>>53805857
>Tracking
>Slowdown
>Security risks
You just gave 3 good reasons yourself.
The tracking is absolutely obscene, I've found sites that want scripts from 10+ domains but only need two enabled to actually function, the rest all being tracking bullshit.
>>53803703
Sauce on that loli?
>>53803718
>Do you spend any time optimizing your programs or code for CPU cycles or RAM usage?
Yes, you faggot.
>mfw my personal website is 10 kilobytes
FASTER
I WANT TO GO FAASSSSTTTEEERRRRR
>>53805473
Forums are actually a great use case for the traditional LAMP-or-equivalent httpd+interpreter+DB stack. There's a ton of dynamic content and it has to change per user. Static generators are for web pages that don't change all that often (once a blog post instead of once a second, for example) and look the same regardless of who is viewing them.
>>53806033
>watching gif
>go on, go on, go on
>thatsapenis.jpg
Why does anime do this to us?
>>53805932
>actually function
What do you mean when you say that? Are you telling me that the page will display without the disable javascript elements, but will need to become active to access other features of the site?(which defeats the purpose of disabling anything at all) Or are you saying that you can disable multiple javascript elements within a site and actively navigate without most javascript elements/any other tracking elements? We both know that you are tracked either way, so what are you accomplishing? (Especially if the later is the true, and I believe it is)
>>53806896
>What do you mean when you say that?
I mean noscript will block say
example.com
cdn.example.com
analytics.example.com
analytics.google.com
(truncated, but throw in more irrelevant analytics, and more explicit advertising urls.)
but will function entirely with just "example.com" and "cdn.example.com"
>We both know that you are tracked either way, so what are you accomplishing?
Mitigating tracking to any degree is a good thing. Better to die on your feet. Reducing the amount of redundant javascript being run and so reducing bloat a small amount. (As Tesco say: Every little helps.)
