
Warning.js: the opposite of noscript warnings - tampo9
https://github.com/asciimoo/warning.js
======
0x4a42
100 lines of code for this is not "tiny": <script>alert('You are using
JavaScript!')</script>

~~~
vog
I don't get it, either. Even the include is longer that directly writing a
plain alert:

    
    
        <script type="text/javascript" src="warning.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
    

versus:

    
    
        <script>alert('You forgot to disable JavaScript!')</script>
    

To be fair, the following would be sufficient, but for some strange reasons
the project recommends the long version:

    
    
        <script src="warning.js"></script>

------
thomascgalvin
So the demo site [1] shows this warning:

> We are psyched to tell you, NOT on this site, here you don't need no
> stinking JavaScript!!!!1!

Which, if you simply include the script as directed in the "Installation &
Usage" section, can't even be customized. This is hideously unprofessional,
and I would immediately bounce off of any site that included it.

[1]
[https://asciimoo.github.io/warning.js/](https://asciimoo.github.io/warning.js/)

------
fluxsauce
> I hate JavaScript so much that I'm going to include JavaScript complaining
> about you running my JavaScript.

Or just don't include any JavaScript.

------
erikrothoff
While an interesting idea, it feels like an uphill battle with a broken
vehicle. The tone is a bit unfortunate and off-putting.

------
danschumann
I hate this, because I love javascript, but it did make me laugh.

------
nukeop
uMatrix is a superior alternative to noscript and should be recommended
instead. It allows for a far greater amount of control over displayed and
loaded content than noscript, and with a more intuitive UI.

