[LINK] Tools for Compiling to JavaScript

Craig Sanders cas at taz.net.au
Tue Apr 14 23:34:45 AEST 2015

On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 08:17:30PM +1000, Stephen Loosley wrote:
> The steadfast will feel like this is abject capitulation, a
> bitter retreat from the principles that bind you to your favorite
> syntax. Some may even feel it's a bit of a betrayal, an act so
> traitorous that you must hide it from your colleagues.  [...]

and some will wonder why they are expected to allow untrusted code
(almost certainly including spyware, and potentially far more malicious
malware) to run on their computer just to view a web page.

i run firefox with noscript(*) because i don't want to have to trust the
javascrip code on every random web site i might follow a link to.

most sites work well enough without javascript - which is what they're
supposed to do: degrade gracefully and remain useful even in that

sites that don't work at all without js are giving an excellent warning
sign that the site isn't worth visiting and ought to be avoided. in my
experience this is true in almost 100% of cases.

and for the handful that it isn't true for, i fire up another browser so
that the js code is isolated from my normal browser's data.

(*) i also run adblock partly because i don't like ads but mostly
because malicious javascript and flash in advertising is the number one
source of malware these days. money gives a good reason for ad network
operators to turn a blind eye to whatever filth they're distributing.
they'll claim that it's too expensive to thoroughly vet the ads that
their customers run - but they conveniently neglect to mention that
while they're the ones who reap all the profit from the ads, it's the
public who are the ones who bear all the risk.


craig sanders <cas at taz.net.au>

More information about the Link mailing list