Re: Web versions

[Colby Russell]

On 3/15/21 9:47 AM, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
> Again, the Javascript trap is a good place to start ...

No, it isn't.  The JavaScript Trap is a (reasonable) argument against
trends of modern web apps, i.e., a software architecture relying on
code-on-demand that lies under someone else's control, esp. when that
software is not freely licensed.  It is not an argument against JS.
*Every* occurrence of the words "JavaScript" and "WebAssembly" in the
messages written here have been arguments against the former, not the
latter.  There is no reasonable argument against the latter on free
software principles.

Please stop responding to your opponents as if they haven't read The
JavaScript Trap.  Please start responding as if you've actually read
(and understood) the arguments your opponents are standing behind.
Assume that your opponents have an understanding of the relevant issues
at hand that is at least as sophisticated as your understanding, and
that they abhor inscrutable and obfuscated ("minified") code-on-demand
bundles at least as much as you.

Consider this passage from The JavaScript Trap:

    If the program is self-contained [...] you can copy it to a file on
    your machine, modify it, and visit that file with a browser to run
    it.  But that is an unusual case.

In particular, consider the irony of it, in light of the way this
discussion has gone.  In this discussion, it has been you all who would
bear responsibility for this case remaining "unusual": by continually
invoking the web app canard and responding to imagined caricatures of
the arguments being sent your way, rather than the actual arguments
themselves.

PS: Neither GNU nor FSF even have a fatwa against JS.  IceCat has
endorsement.  Just like Emacs uses large amounts of elisp, IceCat
consists of hundreds of thousands of lines of JS.  Both its existence
and that of LibreJS are contradictions of the notion that JS is
inherently worthy of being shunned.

--
Colby Russell