JavaScript: Difference between revisions

Line 19:

*'''Excessive tracking''': JS is much more capable than HTML and CSS '''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> Some people say that JS shouldn't even exist,<ref>https://daringfireball.net/linked/2017/06/22/navistone-form-data</ref><ref>https://daringfireball.net/linked/2017/06/27/web-without-javascript</ref> implying that it should be an [[wikipedia:Browser_extension|extension]] or [[wikipedia:Plug-in_(computing)|plug-in]] the user willingly installs.

*'''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}}. 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]] (both [https://gavinhoward.com/2024/03/what-computers-cannot-do-the-consequences-of-turing-completeness/#mathematical-vs-practical in practice and in theory]) is a recipe for disaster, as it 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}}. 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]] (both [https://gavinhoward.com/2024/03/what-computers-cannot-do-the-consequences-of-turing-completeness/#mathematical-vs-practical in practice and in theory]) is a recipe for disaster, as it 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]].

==How it works==

@@ Line 19: / Line 19: @@
 *'''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 --> Some people say that JS shouldn't even exist,<ref>https://daringfireball.net/linked/2017/06/22/navistone-form-data</ref><ref>https://daringfireball.net/linked/2017/06/27/web-without-javascript</ref> implying that it should be an [[wikipedia:Browser_extension|extension]] or [[wikipedia:Plug-in_(computing)|plug-in]] the user willingly installs.
-*'''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}}. 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]] (both [https://gavinhoward.com/2024/03/what-computers-cannot-do-the-consequences-of-turing-completeness/#mathematical-vs-practical in practice and in theory]) is a recipe for disaster, as it 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}}. 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 alonw 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]) is a recipe for disaster, as it 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]].
 ==How it works==