"Nick Sabalausky" <a@a.a> wrote in message news:gvcaph$2ktt$1@digitalmars.com...
>
> Although I may often say things to the contrary, I don't actually advocate the outright elimination of JS or Flash world-wide (hell, I've even used them myself *where appropriate*).

However, I *would* like to see JS and Flash replaced by equivilents that aren't so shitty from a development perspective. (ECMAScript 4 is a notable improvement though, but still...)

> IIRC, I think NoScript does let you do site-by-site, right? I just hope it plays nice with QuickJava though, (or contains QuickJava-style
It does, both.
> functionality), because trying to configure sites/pages manually would be a major PITA and possibly not even be worth it.
>
> And then there's FlashBlock, which I *would* absolutely love...except it *only* works with JS enabled!!! ^&$&^%^^&!!! And frankly, I just don't have the time to dig into FF extension-writing and do things the way I really want them.
Just use noscript for blocking flash
>
> But of course, these are all just clumbsy symptom-attacking hacks anyway, not real solutions. Plus there's the issue that the more extentions you're using, the slower FF gets... So at best you're just fixing one problem at the cost of another.

Well actually, I think noscript is the solution.
In the period that new technologies are unfit for those who see their
evilness, you can (partly) disable them until you think those technologies
are that much better than the then 'new tech'.

"Saaa" <empty@needmail.com> wrote in message news:gvcac0$2k6l$1@digitalmars.com...
> The tango website is the slowest website I know, so I think it is an exceptionally bad example for showing js being slow as I know a lot of websites which use loads more of web 2.o stuff and show up in less than a second.
>

Joystiq/Engadget/Etc are just as slow, if not moreso.

"Nick Sabalausky" <a@a.a> wrote in message news:gvcb23$2lgm$1@digitalmars.com...
> "Saaa" <empty@needmail.com> wrote in message news:gvcac0$2k6l$1@digitalmars.com...
>> The tango website is the slowest website I know, so I think it is an exceptionally bad example for showing js being slow as I know a lot of websites which use loads more of web 2.o stuff and show up in less than a second.
>>
>
> Joystiq/Engadget/Etc are just as slow, if not moreso.
As I said, the tango website is the slowest I know (and I do know joystiq,
engadget and probably etc.)
I block most content on those so I think it is a good comparison as dsource
doesn't use external sources (according to noscript).

"Jarrett Billingsley" <jarrett.billingsley@gmail.com> wrote in message news:mailman.165.1243195228.13405.digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com...
>
> I'm starting to get the impression that you just have a _really slow Javascript interpreter_ in your browser.  I have no idea what you're talking about with text input lag.  I have never experienced that. And the Tango API opens in about 2 seconds with JS enabled for me.
>
> What browser are you *using*?

Oh I do have a notably slow JS interpreter (FF). But that's completely beside the point. A web page should be designed to work properly (and that includes responsiveness) on *any* major browser. Anything less is just plain irresponsible.

Also, what kind of computer do you have? Some sort of multi-core 64-bit? I don't care if that's all that the stores are currently trying to sell, there's no excuse for responsive *web browsing* to require that kind of hardware.

"Saaa" <empty@needmail.com> wrote in message news:gvcb0n$2l9f$1@digitalmars.com...
>
>>
>> And then there's FlashBlock, which I *would* absolutely love...except it *only* works with JS enabled!!! ^&$&^%^^&!!! And frankly, I just don't have the time to dig into FF extension-writing and do things the way I really want them.
>
> Just use noscript for blocking flash

I don't like the way it does it. FlashBlock gives me a box where the flash is, and when I do want to view it (and yes, *sometimes* I do), I can just click on it and it'll show. Unless noscript has changed since I last looked at it, it doesn't do anything like that, it's just all-or-nothing.

> Adblock is essential. Most ads have gotten so completely out-of-hand, I seriously wouldn't even be using the web anymore if it weren't for Adblock.

Definitely. It's also useful for blocking other obnoxious stuff like emoticons or avatars in those phpBB forums.

> IIRC, I think NoScript does let you do site-by-site, right? I just hope it plays nice with QuickJava though, (or contains QuickJava-style 

Yes, disabling site-by-site is a major feature of NoScript. NoScript places an icon on the status bar. Clicking that icon will show a pop up menu, where you can choose which scripts to enable (by site), and if you want to do it permanently. I don't know how it plays with QuickJava, Java applets, or Flash.

My only concern with NoScript is, enabling a site reloads all tabs containing a script from that site. Oh, and by default, it shows some sort of GUI animation when loading a site with blocked scripts. But you can disable it.

> What browser are you *using*?

Firefox. But I often use Konqueror for "serious work" (!= entertainment, wasting time). With Konqueror, some sites become dead slow with Java Script enabled. Oh, and although Konqueror is a very nice browser, scripting often causes malfunctions. That all just shows how fragile the approach of running scripts inside the browser is. It's probably Konqueror's fault, but if JS weren't so complicated (I mean, it's a complete scripting language), this wouldn't be an issue. Lots of complex software = more failures and performance regressions.

On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 4:39 PM, Nick Sabalausky <a@a.a> wrote:
> "Jarrett Billingsley" <jarrett.billingsley@gmail.com> wrote in message news:mailman.165.1243195228.13405.digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com...
>>
>> I'm starting to get the impression that you just have a _really slow Javascript interpreter_ in your browser.  I have no idea what you're talking about with text input lag.  I have never experienced that. And the Tango API opens in about 2 seconds with JS enabled for me.
>>
>> What browser are you *using*?
>
> Oh I do have a notably slow JS interpreter (FF). But that's completely beside the point. A web page should be designed to work properly (and that includes responsiveness) on *any* major browser. Anything less is just plain irresponsible.
>
> Also, what kind of computer do you have? Some sort of multi-core 64-bit? I don't care if that's all that the stores are currently trying to sell, there's no excuse for responsive *web browsing* to require that kind of hardware.

I use Firefox too.  My computer isn't even a fire-breathing monster by today's standards: Athlon X2 64 4600+, but it's running in 32-bit mode.

And if you don't want to keep your hardware new enough to match the demands of modern software, no matter how badly-engineered you deem it, well, you'll always be bitching about how slow everything is.  If you have usability issues, it's on your end.  I don't.  My computer, and everything I access on the internet, are perfectly responsive. Are you going to continue blaming everyone else, or are you just going to get a new machine?  They're like $12 now.

> to get a new machine?  They're like $12 now.

Where can I buy 12$ computers?