At the same time, I want to emphasize more strongly the flip side that I think you don't at but don't go much I to: I do find that writing less code & using the platform is enormously valuable! Doing less & letting the browser do the thing is a very nice win.
If only they would do it nice and consistently, I would agree. Sadly they don't. On one plattform you get sliders in this color who pop in when the mouse moves there, on another you have fixed size sliders of a different color and style. Impossible to make a coherent style like this.
for any sites that do need js, i simply enable it for them from the extension, so it never gets in the way with sites i use regularly
it's pretty nice for performance/battery and security
have you ever tried living with noscript for over a week? i feel like your perspective could be a bit mislead, because i felt the exact same way as you before i started using noscript
disclaimer: i'm the author of the blogpost
Genuine question though: you just run a ton of apps instead, right? Windows apps, iOS apps, whatever. Right? Because you still want to use (and not just "look at") Facebook or WhatsApp or BSky or Drive or CoD:BO6 or... everything. And all that stuff runs in an environment with the same privacy-compromising power (generally much more dangerous, frankly).
I just don't see a situation where "use noscript" doesn't really just mean "use your phone so you don't have to use your browser". I mean, why bother? You're not winning anything.
(Quite frankly most of the people I see in this argument eventually admit this straight up: "no javascript" really means "no Google" to them, and their goal isn't privacy at all except as a proxy thing; it's the destruction of the World Wide Web as a platform in favor of Apple's offerings.)
for sites such as facebook, i don't really use them that often, so i only run js on them when i feel like consenting to it
yes, i use programs/apps, but attack surface and threat models aren't binary, so it's still better to make things more secure
But again, the point is that market decisions aren't microeconomic. The world where everyone uses noscript by default is a world where no one builds web apps anymore (because the platform sucks by default) and everyone uses native apps from whoever the dominant vendor happens to be. And that's worse (much worse, by basically every metric, including privacy and security) and not better.
Your logic only works if you're a parasite: you can use noscript to "protect" yourself only if most people don't.
Separately, we already live in a world where people tend to pick "native" apps (e.g. Discord, Slack) that are just wrappers around the webapp, and on the phone you have similar behavior where people often prefer the "native" app (e.g. twitter/X) over the mobile web version. Despite this asymmetry, web apps continue to be built, and they would continue even if everyone used noscript.
and like, noscript doesn't mean you can't run javascript - it just means you have to consent to it, just like it was in the past with flash and java applets
your argument kind of assumes noscript users never run javascript, which is false
For many people that's true and good luck to them.
For others, myself included, I can't think of anything worse online than being locked into mega corporations such as Google and Facebook. I don't have a Google or Facebook account and I de-Google my Android phone by either disabling or removing all Goolge apps (there are pleanty of alternatives).
I'd bet that if you did a survey you'd find that those who can live without scripts are also those who can essentially live without Social Media and or Google apps. However, for many, the imperatives of Social Media are so strong that no argument would ever convince them to go script-free.
In essence, here we're dealing with diametrically opposite worldviews and there's little point or value in trying to reconcile them.
I visit new websites all the time because of HN and Reddit, and without JavaScript many sites just don't work or look too broken for me to want to read anything. Unless we collectively decide to stop using buttons instead of anchors for navigation and stop having external, unrelated JavaScript blocking the actual site (that, sometimes funny enough, doesn't require JavaScript to function), it's not going to get any better.
I went through a phase where I think JavaScript is bad and have used CSS instead of JavaScript for a lot of things (mostly because I enjoy writing CSS). The thing is if you have ever tried developing any substantial and moderately complex feature for an actual product with CSS instead of JavaScript, while keeping them readable, maintainable and scalable, you will realize that they are good for different things and talking about them in a mutually exclusive way isn't helpful.
Both CSS and JavaScript are constantly evolving, I agree with you that there are now things that we should do with CSS instead of JavaScript and increasingly more so.
I have been living without Javascript, and without a mouse, for over 20 years
When I began using the web, Javascript did not exist
Extracting text for reading and downloading files keeps getting easier every year
I generally avoid using a browser to make HTTP requests; I sometimes use a text-only browser to read saved HTML (offline)
As I implied in my earlier post most users these days don't realize the advantages of turning off JS. Trouble is, most browser manufacturers make it difficult to disable JS, either there's no switch in the settings or it's buried so deep it's essentially dysfunctional. Here I'd especially single out Mozilla with Firefox, one could once easily disable JS but the function was removed I suspect after pressure from Google—as you would know without JS ads are almost a non event.
On Android I use Privacy Browser which makes it dead easy to turn JS off and on, and on Windows and Linux it's Pale Moon with a plugin that provides a one-click switch.
Seems to me too little is made of these advantages in tech sites such as HN—although that's not surprising given that many here make a living from JS programming and are paid by companies who financially benefit from sending mega-sized JS-loaded pages to web users.
The other motivation mentioned is performance. But they don’t belabor the whole motivation thing anyway. IMO that’s a good, focusing on showing off the tech seems more productive anyway.
It's not JavaScript that I'm against but the many abuses that websites inflict on users—privacy violations, pages of many tens of megabytes long but which only contain some 10k or so of text, the incredibility slow page load times, etc., etc.
As far as I'm concerned CSS is capable of just about anything I require of a webpage.
It seems a shame that not more users are aware of browsing sans JS with a button to turn it on and off. After experiencing the advantages it's quickly habit-forming. The increase in speed of page loads alone justifies killing JS.
correct, nearly all dont
edit: IE javascript was probably responsible for at least half a dozen times their system has been ruined, and they know what tracking is.
What does this mean?
Deep down inside, however, I miss DSSSL.
Recent survey of what people use to learn CSS:
https://2025.stateofcss.com/en-US/resources/
CSS Tricks article on this:
https://css-tricks.com/how-to-keep-up-with-new-css-features/
I do wish we would start to move further towards a sane set of front-end application (logic) technologies (I don't think the current leader, Typescript NextJS is it)
But I do appreciate that CSS is starting to feel a lot more sane these days.
Here's a thought. Build a WYSISYG tool like that. HTML/CSS only. Round trip; that is; it reads its own HTML/CSS and works on that, rather than using some separately stored representation.
If you want to use Javascript with this, it has to be inside a manually edited IFRAME or FRAME. If you have Javascript, it's probably for interacting with a server or doing something graphical. Or, more likely, for ads, tracking, and such. Not for layout.
cool-thing {
display: flex;
&[shadow] {
box-shadow: 1px 1px #0007;
}
@media (width < 480px) {
flex-direction: column;
}
}
and html like
<cool-thing shadow>wow</cool-thing>
-- update --
my bad - I think it was just subtle and I thought it wasn't doing anything. Thanks for all the replies
also the box-shadow is a box shadow, you might wanna change it to text-shadow if that's what you'd expect from it
text-shadow does make more sense if you're actually trying out the code, but the original intention was to demonstrate a more complex element having a shadow modifier
- https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/CSS_nesting...
- https://caniuse.com/css-media-range-syntax
GUIs are successful when they follow visual and behaviorial standards. With everything that CSS and JS can do, every website becomes an exercise in discovery just to be able to use it for its intended purpose.
Wouldn't that be a design or HCI issue, not something innate to a language? What is a behavioral standard?
A behavioral standard would be that scrolling always works by sliding the scroll bar or using the arrow or page-down keys.
Or that the back button takes you to the previous page.
Just two examples.
Many sites break these and you have to discover what they replaced them with.
I find vw very useful for a scaling pixel-perfect mobile portrait view that looks identical whether your mobile is 320px or 440px viewport width.
if you're going to disagree with something, please at least read it first
I generally avoid vh, and rely more on calc and vw to calculate any height that needs cropping, padding or scaling.
For example dynamically equalising the height of boxes with unequal content - used to be something you did need JavaScript for.
Another is setting widths, heights and gaps using a css grid to create responsive mosaic image layouts.
RIP any semblance of using meaningful tags for machine readability I guess.
if an element that semantically fits your needs already exists you don't need to make up an element in the first place
I know like 10-15 different languages, and CSS is by far the hardest to read and understand. It's easier to understand x86 assembly than CSS. CSS is basically pre-tokenized input that drives a renderer, but they sort of went halfway and didn't really make it real tokens or really human-writable.
I'd say that it should take the place of ASN.1 in the RFCs as an example of "what not to do."
CSS is hard to know, even if you know 15 languages.
I can understand many programming languages and write in a subset of many of their features, but I wouldn't claim to know them. That would require a monumental amount of day to day effort, in my opinion (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusion_of_explanatory_depth).
To me, the best way to understand CSS is to evaluate it after rendering, and I have been writing it for decades.
> n-th child variable
See sibiling-index() and sibling-count() https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/sibling-ind...
> Reusable blocks
See @function and @mixin draft spec, https://drafts.csswg.org/css-mixins-1/ and https://css-tricks.com/functions-in-css/
Both are available in chrome already.
Given that HTML+CSS is really damn powerful as this post makes clear, how do other UI toolkits compare? I've always wanted to do more with Qt, but probably it won't come near HTML+CSS in terms of functionality and flexibility?
Unfortunately the preprocessor languages we have just add even more half-baked ideas on top of the half-baked ideas already in CSS, according to the principle that syntax sugar = good.
I haven't seen anything out there that provides an alternative but it does seem like CSS has almost added enough features you could actually build something that works. Alternatively it could be done through higher level abstractions built on something like React: <Flex>, <Grid> etc.
CSS2 included limited layout, but support in popular broswers lagged for so long that practically nobody learned the standard, just the vibe styling voodoo to get certain browsers to kinda partially work.
from the article is talking about people like you, who refuse to learn something properly but have the arrogance to think they know better.
For testing there are extensions which allow overriding the browser’s scheme (for Firefox anyway).
At the same time doing the simplest imaginable layout was a headache. I've done it, and it was interesting as in, this is a challenge and I am taking it head on, but it never should've been a challenge. Things have improved exponentially here, but it should've been the idea all along. Not how to cascade rules.
All other criticism, the syntax etc. is nitpicky and not important. As long as it's allowing you to do something useful without much fuss, I am ok with any syntax. But it didn't and it never did. Making a webpage layout should not be a full time job.
And since documents "fit" trees way more often than not; I'd say CSS is a good fit.
How dare people use CSS without learning in-depth all 20+ specifications! It's an outrage!
When people have problems using a tool, you should look at the tool rather than blaming the people. People aren't going to change. You don't tell people to be more careful using a bandsaw; you install safety features.
I'm a big believer in learning new stuff, when that stuff has lasting value. However it is far more efficient to fix things, a one time cost that benefits everyone, than to ask everyone to learn the quirks of a tool, a cost that is paid every time someone new comes along.
I think that if you want to follow WAI-ARIA practices, the aria-selected, tabindex and aria-controls need to be updated via JS when the active tab changes? I'd love to be wrong about that.
Accessibility is often an afterthought. And, sometimes there's an assumption that by working with HTML/CSS directly, accessibility comes built in. Just Something to keep in mind when choosing an approach.
[0]: https://lyra.horse/blog/2025/08/you-dont-need-js/#fn:10
I am aware that people who read the blog might base parts of their websites on my examples, so I definitely want to make sure they're accessible as to not cause a negative ripple effect on the web.
I don't have a background in accessibility, but I try to do the best I can. I try out what I make with various accessibility tools (e.g. keyboard navigation, screenreaders), and also read up on how things should be handled.
For the radio tabs specifically - they are keyboard navigable, work with screenreaders, and follow the tabbing to content practice mentioned in the WAI-ARIA example[0].
[0] https://www.w3.org/WAI/ARIA/apg/patterns/tabs/examples/tabs-...
paulddraper•9h ago
Explain float: clear?
Does that have anything to do with display: flow-root?
And white-space is not actually whitespace?
And when does vertical-align work vs not?
---
^ That is all CSS (and not particularly edgy CSS, except for flow-root).
So....yes, CSS is really that hard. Unless you use the subset of CSS that you have decided to learn + use. Not unlike C++.
rebane2001•9h ago
whytaka•9h ago
JohnFen•8h ago
Personally -- and I'm no web dev, so I probably don't count -- I think CSS is hard (maybe more irritating than hard, but in any case I wouldn't call it easy). In large part because the syntax is ugly, but also because it just doesn't "mesh" with me. If I'm reading it or writing it, I always feel like I'm having to decode it. But I can easily and happily work with some programming languages that most devs would cross the street to avoid.
Maybe that's also why some people are attracted to being web devs and others aren't?
As a user, nothing would thrill me more than if web pages just stopped using JS, though, so I am very happy that there is a feasible alternative to doing that that web devs could enjoy!
extraisland•6h ago
No that often isn't the case. What is usually the case is that people don't bother the learning the basics. CSS is very easy. You can literally mess about with it on the fly in the browser and instantly see the result.
It is easier now than it has ever been. Since all the browsers for the most part implement the standards properly. Safari is the only standout and all the issues with that are well known.
> In large part because the syntax is ugly, but also because it just doesn't "mesh" with me. If I'm reading it or writing it, I always feel like I'm having to decode it. But I can easily and happily work with some programming languages that most devs would cross the street to avoid.
It is probably because you haven't learned the basics.
Whenever anyone has issues understanding CSS, they haven't bothered learning the basics and think they can flub their way through doing it.
I don't understand what is ugly about the syntax.
It is about as straight forward as it could be. The difficulty with CSS is organisation as the web app becomes larger. There are well documented strategies on how to do this.> As a user, nothing would thrill me more than if web pages just stopped using JS, though, so I am very happy that there is a feasible alternative to doing that that web devs could enjoy!
Non-trivial functionality requires JS. Basic Websites rarely require JS. So I am not sure what you are trying to say here.
typpilol•5h ago
Honestly the best thing I tell people to get some decent css basics is try to build a few stylus themes.
You can instantly see the results in devtools. I can't think of any other language that does that besides html, and even then you have to save and refresh.
Css is pretty easy to pick up in the chrome devtools at least because it has built in autocomplete. Showing you exactly what you can set the values too etc
b_e_n_t_o_n•11m ago
The syntax has never been the issue imo.
paulddraper•8h ago
Semaphor•5h ago
nicoburns•8h ago
socalgal2•7h ago
white-space seems pretty straight forward: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/white-space
vertical-align, yea, alignment in general is hard and IMO it's hard because it's a hard topic in general, CSS or native. but yea, it's not "vertical-align"
SquareWheel•6h ago