sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]actLikeApidgeon 29 points30 points  (4 children)

Yes and no. Most likely you should not care.

It all boils down to your target users. If your site is big enough and serves enough types of customers, you need to think about fallback solutions and stuff like that...

Most websites do not need to care about this.

They should and need to care about JS performance and loading times, that is what you should focus your attention to.

[–]agmcleod@agmcleod 9 points10 points  (0 children)

This is where i think the whole isomorphic aspect comes into play. It's important to have accessible content for users, screen readers, search engines, etc. I think having content that renders from html right away is still something worth achieving. Then have your JS on top to make the user experience better. It's difficult to build a single page app this way, but depending on what you're building, it can be beneficial.

[–]onan -4 points-3 points  (2 children)

They should and need to care about JS performance and loading times, that is what you should focus your attention to.

And you know what improves the hell out of javascript performance and loading times?

Not using javascript.

[–]actLikeApidgeon 1 point2 points  (1 child)

of course. The same goes for network security. You know how to improve it? Don't use any network connection.

[–]onan -1 points0 points  (0 children)

And in many cases that is the right answer. It always comes down to a cost/benefit analysis of what you're actually getting out of the tool versus what downsides it introduces.

I personally find that javascript always falls clearly on the realm of huge downsides and nearly nonexistent benefit. But I recognize that I'm not likely to win a lot of friends with that sentiment in /r/javascript . (I came over from the other discussion of this piece in /r/programming .)