JavaScript: Difference between revisions
mNo edit summary |
m swap OJSF & ECMA, again, because this is JS not ES |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
|InProduction=Yes | |InProduction=Yes | ||
|Category=Software | |Category=Software | ||
|Website=https:// | |Website=https://openjsf.org/,https://tc39.es/ecma262/multipage/ | ||
|Description=A high-level programming language that's also the "lingua franca of the web" | |Description=A high-level programming language that's also the "lingua franca of the web" | ||
|Logo=JavaScript-logo.png}} | |Logo=JavaScript-logo.png}} | ||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
*'''Lack of transparency''': To optimize network bandwidth, JS code is typically served in [[wikipedia:Minification_(programming)|minified]] form, which makes it harder to understand for humans. This is particularly problematic if the original source is not publicly [[wikipedia:Source-available_software|available]], which is typically the case of [[wikipedia:Proprietary_software|proprietary software]]. | *'''Lack of transparency''': To optimize network bandwidth, JS code is typically served in [[wikipedia:Minification_(programming)|minified]] form, which makes it harder to understand for humans. This is particularly problematic if the original source is not publicly [[wikipedia:Source-available_software|available]], which is typically the case of [[wikipedia:Proprietary_software|proprietary software]]. | ||
*'''Excessive tracking''': JS is much more capable than HTML and CSS<!-- See "CSS Exfil": https://www.mike-gualtieri.com/posts/stealing-data-with-css-attack-and-defense/ --> '''combined''' to track user behavior.<ref>https://clickclickclick.click/</ref> JS can communicate with almost any server (only limited by [[wikipedia:Cross-origin_resource_sharing|CORS]]) at any time (limited by connection availability), using a plethora of protocols. JS can get hardware information and compute a [[Device fingerprint|fingerprint of the device]], user, or both.<ref>https://privacycheck.sec.lrz.de/</ref><ref>https://abrahamjuliot.github.io/creepjs</ref><ref>https://www.deviceinfo.me/</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Learn how identifiable you are on the Internet |url=https://www.amiunique.org/ |access-date=2026-03-19 |website=Am I Unique ?}}</ref> | *'''Excessive tracking''': JS is much more capable than HTML and CSS<!-- See "CSS Exfil": https://www.mike-gualtieri.com/posts/stealing-data-with-css-attack-and-defense/ --> '''combined''' to track user behavior.<ref>https://clickclickclick.click/</ref> JS can communicate with almost any server (only limited by [[wikipedia:Cross-origin_resource_sharing|CORS]]) at any time (limited by connection availability), using a plethora of protocols. JS can get hardware information and compute a [[Device fingerprint|fingerprint of the device]], user, or both.<ref>https://privacycheck.sec.lrz.de/</ref><ref>https://abrahamjuliot.github.io/creepjs</ref><ref>https://www.deviceinfo.me/</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Learn how identifiable you are on the Internet |url=https://www.amiunique.org/ |access-date=2026-03-19 |website=Am I Unique ?}}</ref> | ||
*'''Market control''': JS is built into almost every web-browser and [[wikipedia:User_agent|user-agent]] (UA), including "light-weight" ones (such as [[wikipedia:W3m|w3m]]), incentivizing companies to use it for everything, since "there's no need to worry about compatibility or portability".<ref>{{Cite web |title=Everyone has JavaScript, right? |url=https://www.kryogenix.org/code/browser/everyonehasjs |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260316024516/https://www.kryogenix.org/code/browser/everyonehasjs.html |archive-date=2026-03-16 |access-date=2026-03-19 |website=Kryogenix Consulting}}</ref><!-- We need another citation here. The current one is relevant, but doesn't cite anyone who assumes JS is portable. Ideally, it should cite an entity using that quote as an excuse to add JS everywhere --> John Gruber says that JS shouldn't | *'''Market control''': JS is built into almost every web-browser and [[wikipedia:User_agent|user-agent]] (UA), including "light-weight" ones (such as [[wikipedia:W3m|w3m]]), incentivizing companies to use it for everything, since "there's no need to worry about compatibility or portability".<ref>{{Cite web |title=Everyone has JavaScript, right? |url=https://www.kryogenix.org/code/browser/everyonehasjs |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260316024516/https://www.kryogenix.org/code/browser/everyonehasjs.html |archive-date=2026-03-16 |access-date=2026-03-19 |website=Kryogenix Consulting}}</ref><!-- We need another citation here. The current one is relevant, but doesn't cite anyone who assumes JS is portable. Ideally, it should cite an entity using that quote as an excuse to add JS everywhere --> John Gruber says that JS shouldn't be part of browsers;<ref>{{Cite web |last=Gruber |first=John |date=2017-06-22 |title=Gizmodo Investigation Exposes Websites Collecting Form Data Before You Hit 'Submit' |url=https://daringfireball.net/linked/2017/06/22/navistone-form-data |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260319180650/https://daringfireball.net/linked/2017/06/22/navistone-form-data |archive-date=2026-03-19 |access-date=2026-03-20 |website=Daring Fireball}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Gruber |first=John |date=2017-06-27 |title=Using Today's Web Without JavaScript |url=https://daringfireball.net/linked/2017/06/27/web-without-javascript |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260319180612/https://daringfireball.net/linked/2017/06/27/web-without-javascript |archive-date=2026-03-19 |access-date=2026-03-20 |website=Daring Fireball}}</ref> one way that would work is by turning JS into an [[wikipedia:Browser_extension|extension]] or [[wikipedia:Plug-in_(computing)|plug-in]] that the user willingly installs.<!-- This proposal is just to sugarcoat John's bold/"based" opinion, without putting words in his mouth. I'm not sure how else to reword this --> | ||
*'''Security risks''': It is well-known that JS is poorly-designed,<ref>https://github.com/denysdovhan/wtfjs</ref><ref>https://github.com/brianleroux/wtfjs</ref><ref>https://wiki.theory.org/YourLanguageSucks#JavaScript_sucks_because</ref><ref>https://github.com/Rudxain/ideas/blob/aa9a80252a4b7c9c51f32eda5c716e96220ed96e/software/evar/with_bf.js</ref> even [[wikipedia:Ecma_International|tc39]] acknowledges that{{Citation needed}}<!-- They do improve (and complicate) it every year, but the fact that `eval` isn't deprecated implies they don't care that much about improving the language -->. This leads to programmers and even experienced software-devs to accidentally add vulnerabilities to their code. That, and the fact that ES is [[wikipedia:Turing_completeness|Turing-complete]]<!-- Not typo. ECMAScript alone is TC. No need for extensions --> (both [https://gavinhoward.com/2024/03/what-computers-cannot-do-the-consequences-of-turing-completeness/#mathematical-vs-practical in practice and in theory]), makes [[wikipedia:Debugging|debugging]] and [[wikipedia:Reverse_engineering|reverse-engineering]] impractical in big code-bases. It's worth noting that tooling, such as [[wikipedia:TypeScript|TypeScript]] and [[wikipedia:ESLint|ESLint]], exist to substantially minimize the likelihood of [[wikipedia:Software_bug|bugs]]. | *'''Security risks''': It is well-known that JS is poorly-designed,<ref>https://github.com/denysdovhan/wtfjs</ref><ref>https://github.com/brianleroux/wtfjs</ref><ref>https://wiki.theory.org/YourLanguageSucks#JavaScript_sucks_because</ref><ref>https://github.com/Rudxain/ideas/blob/aa9a80252a4b7c9c51f32eda5c716e96220ed96e/software/evar/with_bf.js</ref> even [[wikipedia:Ecma_International|tc39]] acknowledges that{{Citation needed}}<!-- They do improve (and complicate) it every year, but the fact that `eval` isn't deprecated implies they don't care that much about improving the language -->. This leads to programmers and even experienced software-devs to accidentally add vulnerabilities to their code. That, and the fact that ES is [[wikipedia:Turing_completeness|Turing-complete]]<!-- Not typo. ECMAScript alone is TC. No need for extensions --> (both [https://gavinhoward.com/2024/03/what-computers-cannot-do-the-consequences-of-turing-completeness/#mathematical-vs-practical in practice and in theory]), makes [[wikipedia:Debugging|debugging]] and [[wikipedia:Reverse_engineering|reverse-engineering]] impractical in big code-bases. It's worth noting that tooling, such as [[wikipedia:TypeScript|TypeScript]] and [[wikipedia:ESLint|ESLint]], exist to substantially minimize the likelihood of [[wikipedia:Software_bug|bugs]]. | ||
| Line 59: | Line 59: | ||
*[[X Corp|Twitter]]. It also used to work without it, but some time after being bought by [[Elon Musk]], it became mandatory.{{Citation needed}} | *[[X Corp|Twitter]]. It also used to work without it, but some time after being bought by [[Elon Musk]], it became mandatory.{{Citation needed}} | ||
*[[wikipedia:Bluesky|Bluesky]]: | *[[wikipedia:Bluesky|Bluesky]]: | ||
**The web app (<code>bsky.app</code>) shows this message if JS is disabled<blockquote>This is a heavily interactive web application, and JavaScript is required. Simple HTML interfaces are possible, but that is not what this is.</blockquote>which is questionable | **The web app (<code>bsky.app</code>) shows this message if JS is disabled<blockquote>This is a heavily interactive web application, and JavaScript is required. Simple HTML interfaces are possible, but that is not what this is.</blockquote>which is questionable | ||
**Its legal docs ([https://bsky.social/about/support/tos ToS], [https://bsky.social/about/support/privacy-policy PP], [https://bsky.social/about/support/community-guidelines CG]) need JS to be viewed by humans, however this seems more of an oversight than deliberate | **Its legal docs ([https://bsky.social/about/support/tos ToS], [https://bsky.social/about/support/privacy-policy PP], [https://bsky.social/about/support/community-guidelines CG]) need JS to be viewed by humans, however this seems more of an oversight than deliberate | ||
*[[Discord]]. While its instant-messaging functionality legitimately requires JS, they refuse to let the user change their account settings (including security and privacy ones) unless JS is enabled. | *[[Discord]]. While its instant-messaging functionality legitimately requires JS, they refuse to let the user change their account settings (including security and privacy ones) unless JS is enabled. | ||