JavaScript considered harmful (was Re: New online index to Beazley's tutorials)

[Alex Martelli]

"Aahz Maruch" <aahz at panix.com> wrote in message
news:a1dh2o$3am$1 at panix3.panix.com...
    ...
> While you have a point in some senses, campaigning against JavaScript --
> particularly poor usage of JavaScript -- is always a Good Thing.  See
> http://www.rahul.net/aahz/javascript.html

Yes *BUT* -- on that page, you also claim:

"the big problem with using cookies is that many people use multiple
browsers on multiple machines; if you're going to solve that problem,
you might as well skip cookies in the first place."

To which I answer, "oh yeah?".

Typical case: a site on which you can 'log in' with a username and
password (not a very original concept, is it?), in order e.g. to get
a customized page already tailored to your 'favourites' whatevers.

The obvious problem: visitors find it irksome to have to type the
username and password on each site-visit in order to get at the
nifty customization features.  We need some client-side state to
ameliorate this.

That's basically what cookies are FOR, no matter what paranoia
many people choose to attach to them as 'anti-privacy devices'.

When, and only when, a user visits the site from a new browser or
machine (or a machine/browser/user combination he or she shares
and from which he or she wasn't the most recent visitor to the
site), then the user will enter username and password.  That's a
tiny fraction of site visits from "regulars", so "the big problem"
just isn't one.

So how might I "as well skip cookies in the first place" in this
utterly TYPICAL scenario?  Only by NOT offering regulars the
convenience of automatic-access to their favourites-settings.  NOT
a halfway sensible tradeoff.

I'd like to recommend your page to help wean JS addicts off their
horrid vice, but I can't do that with a clear conscience as long
as the page contains that anti-cookies snippet...


Alex