I think the consequences of using NoScript outweigh the benefits. I don't think I could stand 40% of the sites I use being unusable due to lack of JavaScript, that's not how it's meant to be.
Occasionally you'll run across a site that has scripts from 30-odd domains, and after enabling a few, it still doesn't work. Those sites aren't worth visiting.
But NoScript gives you the degree of control you want. It's possible to enable all scripts by default, disabling them only when you feel there is a problem. Or you can use it for information purposes only, so you know what third party domains have scripts running on that page.
Or, you can recognise that not functioning at all without JavaScript generally indicates a lack of interest in the user experience.
The problem is people on poor or mobile connections - the majority - who have to suffer that little bit longer to wait for the blocking JavaScript to load and then burn down their limited battery for the sake of parallax scrolling or a marginally prettier icon or button on the static text site they are trying to read.
JavaScript-requiring designers do hate proper user experience.
Having such extra functionality doesn't mean I should need JS at all to view the text content of an article.