Hacker News Reader

JS is only part of the browser.

Accusing people not running browsers that expose them to a nasty bug of feeling an exaggerated sense of "smugness"?

This seems disrepectful of users.

Doesnt that violate HN guidelines?

What I meant by this is that JS relies on a browser with an interpreter. If we use one without an interpreter then JS is nothing but text. I guess one could claim that this text is "part of the web". The point is that it is the users choice whether to run the it through an interpreter. Sometimes they might want to do that (maybe offline), other times they might not. Most times I do not need to run JS to get what I am after (e.g., text, documents, videos, etc.). There is just no need to run all these third party scripts to read some text or download a file for offline viewing. I may read the JS though. In that sense, yes, it is "part of the web". It just isnt the content part that users care about.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com