Ads, not JS, slowing down websites

JS is a blight on the internet

If it's articles you can use reader view in Firefox

>What we had before
Static web pages with no interactivity limited solely to the implementations of PHP?

But js slows everything down you dumbtard. Interpreter will forever be slower than compiled code.

Yeah. Ads using js

Attached: image.jpg (425x592, 196K)

What an awful world. Glad that shit is gone.

>Static web pages with no interactivity
>"The WorldWideWeb (W3) is a wide-area hypermedia information retrieval initiative aiming to give universal access to a large universe of documents."

A very dated outlook on what the web is and can be. You sound like you're a W3C shill.
Same here, more than anything I'm glad JavaScript took hold instead of Flash, because if these kids are bitching about how slow a clusterfuck of JS can make a web page, imagine that same clusterfuck in Flash.

Why not just make everything HTML5?

>A very dated outlook on what the web is and can be.
No. That's what the web IS. If you want to have interactivity over a network create a protocol and software that best facilitates that.

It still lags even with an ad blocker, especially when they override scrolling or do animations with it, case closed, OP dismissed.

>time to refresh this page: 1.5 seconds
>time to click update and load new posts without refreshing: 0.2 seconds
>"JS slower"
kek

Likewise there are advantages you get with an interpreter that you don't get with a compiler. Yes, it's not going to be as fast, but you can evaluate on the fly and foremost, you don't need to go through the process of compiling something to test it.
It's clearly not if you take a look at how the web is used right now, technology does not always fulfill its original purpose and can evolve into something more. I ditto my previous point, you have a dated outlook on what the web is and can be.

same, I'm blocking ads both with uBlock and pi-hole.
I have a symmetric 400Mbps connection, I use ungoogled-chromium with cache on a nVME drive, running on a 8-core CPU and RX470 GPU.
If that's not good enough for browsing the web then I don't know what is.

Flash's infection wasn't even 1/10, even at its worse, as bad as JS's is right now. This is how I know you're a fucking zoomer, because the complaint about websites at the time wasn't Flash, but that people kept using tables for layout.

Not many people actually gave a shit about table usage on websites, the biggest complaints I received where when most advertisers started using flash on web pages, because you'd get a multi-second increase in load times.

just get faster internet

Also I literally pointed out in my post that JS took hold over Flash, which I was grateful for, obviously it didn't "infect" as much if it failed to become the standard for interactivity it set out to be.

>technology does not always fulfill its original purpose and can evolve into something more.
Only because people take an analogue view of something that is digital, where making something new is some huge foray into prototypes and mass production.

When they needed a way to navigate documents intuitively, did they
a) hack in on to gopher or FTP, or
b) create a new protocol and environment to better facilitate it?

This idea that we have to try and rig and bodge shit to fulfil a new function rather than make something FOR that function is the truly outdated view. It's a view for a world that hasn't existed for decades.

Ads use mainly js you retard

>execution of intentionally obfuscated and eval and Function construction code kills performance

Gee, no shit.

FPBP

OP is the eternal faggot.

Attached: 1515979832333.png (505x574, 517K)

You mean HTML5 and CSS? What if I want a drop-down menu that automatically hides/unhides itself so it doesn't take up important vertical space for content on a mobile device, leaving more room for content?

What if I want a graph to update based on the variables a user changes without having to reload the page? JavaScript helps with applications like these, because you don't have to send an entire page worth of content back to the client from the server, and instead are having it handled on the client-side. Not only is this more intuitive for the end-user, but it saves on bandwidth and makes the process more performant, because as already noted, you are not sending an entire page worth of content back to the client just to update a single section of data.

>ping website
>website uses Javascript to handling pinging
>600ms ping

Attached: images.jpg (228x221, 10K)

If you're using an interpreted language for your back-end you are retarded.

>liking the BBC
>believing the BBC

never trust the BBC, user

>but it saves on bandwidth
False. Most of these sites are so bloated and shit that they would use less bandwidth had they just sent everything anyway. You can list hypothetical advantages, but they're far less important or relevant as real-world facts.

>open new website
>forgot to click the Javascript button on the tool bar to turn it off
>move mouse from top of page to mid page
>it slides over some menu words
>dropdown menus spawn all over the place
>can't see content behind it you wanted to click on

I miss the days of dial-up bulletin boards if I'm being honest.

Attached: 404 (1).png (857x730, 118K)

>What if I want a drop-down menu that automatically hides/unhides itself so it doesn't take up important vertical space for content on a mobile device, leaving more room for content?

Have a blank container with a fixed height, that if you hover over with the mouse, it will scroll in your menu. This can be done with vanilla CSS using transform, opacity, transition, etc.
You can potentially do the same with a mobile menu by using :focus but you are kind of limited in the amount of sub-menus you may have; javascript may be necessary there, but you really don't need much more than onclick="document.body.classList.toggle('menuopen');". CSS can handle the open/close states.

op you high, ads use JS all the damn time

>loads website on V-NAND SSDs to speed things up

Attached: 466.jpg (596x470, 43K)

>What if I want a graph to update based on the variables a user changes without having to reload the page

use fucking Excel if you want graphs.

This. Maybe years ago they were acceptable, but they're garbage tier now

>JS
>interpreted
Next thing you are telling me is that LuaJIT is interpreted too.

Or push for some form of semantic syntax that will render a graph from a table should the user have a compatible browser.

i dont think you understand what people mean when they say JS is cancer

adding to that
> cancerous infinite sroll

use an iframe that is pointed to a virtual machine that has a powerpoint slide running inside it.

You mean, like the site we're posting in right now?

>Not learning how to use console to systematically zap that garbage off

What? What I said was a trivial computational task. Even home computers from the early 80's could turn a table in to a graph or chart.

I just stop using that website. I mean why go to such a site if it has that sort of trash?

You don't know what you're talking about. If it's handled on the client-side you're using far less bandwidth, you only make a GET and POST request to the server when needed, instead of having to POST and GET every time you change a variable and want an update done.

If the dropdown includes menu headers that are also links to web pages this leads to a problem, you cannot use :focus here because it will lead to a page, so you would never be able to open the drop down menu.

Documents contain graphs, the web serves up documents; having graphs displayed on your web page is perfectly fine, making them interactive is also fine. Stuff like this is what JavaScript is good at handling, not serving up full-blown interfaces, most of that should be done with HTML/CSS, with JavaScript there to provide extra functionality. Sadly, that's not how JavaScript is being used these days, you have people using template engines where literally everything passes through JavaScript just to be displayed, and this is where you end up having performance problems.

>If it's handled on the client-side you're using far less bandwidth, you only make a GET and POST request to the server when needed
Yeah, but for some reason this technique will be wrapped up in about 6MB of JS. Again, your hypotheticals do not match reality.

Does that fault lie with the language itself or the hack developers who import 6MB of libraries just to perform simple functions? You can do this with other languages as well, importing large libraries needlessly just for one or two functions, would you also complain about that language if this were done, or would you put the fault on the developer for doing it?

We've had the ability to perform AJAX requests baked right into JavaScript for ages, and they made it even simpler to handle with fetch() in recent ECMAS revisions.

>this million xhr will be okay

That this happens every time makes it the language's fault, just like how insecure code is C's fault. There was a time when this didn't really matter, but now it does, so we're replacing it with something else. Which is fine.

The issue is that JS is just a hack on top of a protocol and program (the web browser) that is trying to force it to be something that it wasn't meant to be. Everything people try to do with JS could be an inbuilt function of the program if people were happy to admit that new things are allowed to exist.

This is what happens when you get addicted to legacy. It's no wonder that every OS out now is decades old.

It makes it a fault of developers in general, not of the language itself; you can try to sugarcoat a language and make it retard-proof, but people will still do retarded things with it. Just because you replace C and give people the tools to make it more secure with less work also doesn't mean that you will always have secure programs. This may even amplify the problem even further, because now developers won't even have the capability to see the underlying reasons why those programs are insecure or secure and will never be educated on the matter.

JS isn't forcing itself to do anything, developers are forcing JS to be something it is not, at least in the context of web browsers.

As long as people decide to use the wrong tool for the wrong job, we are always going to have these issues. There are many ways to dice a carrot, sometimes people use the best knife for the job, sometimes people will use a serrated edge, and sometimes people will even use a butter knife. As long as we have people using serrated edges and butter knives to dice carrots, we're always going to have uneven cuts of carrots. Sometimes, you'll get a person who knows what they're doing and they'll dice the carrot evenly, with precision and a form of grace that can only be gained through thousands of hours of experience dicing various foods.

Often, you have the ability to choose where you eat and it's up to you to decide if you want to eat at a restaurant with someone who uses the proper knife and has the experience to cut evenly, or someone who uses a butter knife. If all of us decided to eat at restaurants with people that have the proper experience and use the right tools for the job, there would almost certainly be less people using butter knives to cut carrots out there.

>Shitty coding, not Flash, slowing down websites

See? Irrelevant. Kill JS.

Attached: 1546727112331.png (565x541, 157K)

Or introduce an education system that doesn't miserably fail to teach developers about performance and security.

>kill js
>introduce another language
>devs then proceed to use new language for purposes it wasn't intended to be used for
Excellent solution.

if management wasn't breathing down webdev necks maybe they wouldn't shit out code like the way they do. then again if management didn't do that nothing would be done.

In my experience management usually fucks up the process; when engineers and developers have control you wind up with some beautiful pieces of work that still get completed within a reasonable time frame, just look at what happened with OpenSolaris after they stopped letting management pour over and decide everything they do.

>Ads are causing the problem. Not the 50mb JavaScript files and 4k autoplay videos and images.

>performant
Is this the new buzzword of the year?

I've heard it for a while. Strangely it seems a bit of a misnomer as bloat is getting worse every year.

I'm sorry you're a fucking moron OP and I'm sorry that you don't know that to serve personalized ads you need Javascript.

Attached: 1544133965787.gif (386x217, 521K)