A 99% JavaScript-Free Web: Is It Possible?
JavaScript is unpredictable, old, and sometimes makes me vomit. I don't want to use it anymore. Now, this line is perfect for grabbing your attention, but at the same time, it's false because developers can't live without JavaScript, particularly front-end devs.
This exploration is about finding ways to avoid JavaScript. When I say "avoid JavaScript," I'm not suggesting using something that is transpiled into JavaScript. What I actually mean is that I just want very minimal JavaScript in the final output of my application code.
Overuse of JavaScript: Why It’s a Problem
Developers today depend heavily on JavaScript for everything from front-end frameworks to API interactions. But do we really need to rely so much on it? Here's what's happening: Developers often feel pressured to use JavaScript when simpler, more efficient alternatives are available.
Take popular frameworks like React, Vue, Angular, and Svelte. These are awesome for creating dynamic and responsive websites but can be overkill for simpler applications. They introduce unnecessary complexity, ultimately increasing the learning curve and making maintenance a headache.
So, What’s the Issue with JavaScript?
With extensive use comes several critical pain points, including:
- Slower Load Time – Large JavaScript bundles slow down page performance. Every library you add increases the weight of your project, making load times sluggish.
- Client-Side Rendering Issues – Many frameworks unnecessarily rely on client rendering, which can cause delays and performance hiccups. React apps, for instance, re-render the entire webpage using a virtual DOM, adding more time before a webpage becomes interactive.
- Heavy Dependencies – The more libraries you add, the more you'll encounter problems with compatibility, version updates, and dependency conflicts.
- Hidden Maintenance Costs – Keeping up with the constant updates and potential breaking changes from over-reliance on packages becomes a costly affair in terms of time and resources.
The JIT Compiler: O Boy!
One of the key areas where JavaScript tries to improve performance is through JIT (Just-In-Time) compilation. Modern browsers, like Chrome’s V8 engine, compile JavaScript into machine code at runtime.
The goal is to make JavaScript as fast as possible.
However, this optimization comes at a cost. JIT compilers sometimes change the behavior of JavaScript code, often introducing bugs and unexpected issues that can make your web app fragile. Simply put, JIT compilers’ optimizations can be a gamble.
Common JIT Compiler Bugs
Here are some of the more notorious bugs:
- Miscompilation: The JIT compiler can produce incorrect output if it misoptimizes code sections.
- Bounds Check Elimination: In an attempt to optimize, the JIT compiler might skip necessary checks like array bounds, opening the door to crashes.
- Redundancy Elimination: When the JIT compiler assumes repeated code is redundant, it might eliminate important sections, causing unpredictable behavior.
These compiler issues underline the importance of testing JavaScript extensively to avoid unexpected problems. But more importantly, they show why we need to reduce JavaScript whenever possible to lower the risk of new issues cropping up.
Client-Side Alternatives to JavaScript
The good news is that you don’t have to be stuck in the JavaScript loop. Several alternatives have emerged to reduce JavaScript while maintaining functionality. Two of the most exciting options are HTMX and WebAssembly.
HTMX: Hypermedia on Steroids
HTMX allows developers to build dynamic, interactive web applications with minimal JavaScript. Instead of relying on JavaScript for every interaction, HTMX sends actual HTML from the server, reducing the need to re-render the entire UI with JavaScript frameworks like React.
Imagine this: Instead of sending a JSON response back for your frontend to process, HTMX enables you to send HTML straight from the backend, reducing client-side churn. HTMX leans on traditional HTML anchors and forms to make calls directly to the server—all without JavaScript.
Why HTMX Rocks:
- Minimal learning curve – Add a few attributes to your HTML, and you're up and running.
- Works with HTML – Avoid manipulating the DOM using excessive JavaScript.
- Graceful fallback – Even if someone disables JavaScript in their browser, your HTMX-powered app will still function, albeit without some of the bells and whistles.
In a world where many apps break without JavaScript, HTMX ensures wider compatibility and better performance. It goes back to basics, making requests directly from HTML elements, tackling interactive components like forms or clickable elements without bloating your app with scripts.
WebAssembly: A Performance Powerhouse
When it comes to WebAssembly (Wasm), the intent isn’t to replace JavaScript entirely, but to handle tasks that are computationally heavy. This could be game performance, data science calculations, or image processing, where JavaScript just doesn’t cut it from a performance standpoint.
With WebAssembly, you can compile languages like C, C++, and Rust to perform specific, computation-heavy tasks on the client-side without using JavaScript. This makes WebAssembly ideal for tasks like video editing, gaming, or data processing, all within a web browser.
WebAssembly’s Major Benefits:
- Highly performant: Optimized for CPU-heavy tasks that JavaScript struggles with.
- Runs directly in the browser: Like JavaScript, it benefits from browser support but doesn’t require JavaScript parsing/rendering inefficiency.
- Portable: Same code can be compiled and run across browsers with superb efficiency.
For any site that needs to handle lots of computation, WebAssembly can speed things up and slash loading times.
Server-Side: Time to Ditch JavaScript?
While JavaScript was once confined to the client side, the introduction of Node.js has made it extremely popular on servers too. Node has a lot going for it: Asynchronous event handling, non-blocking I/O, and, of course, using one language across the stack. But JavaScript’s pitfalls (dynamic typing, security risks like prototype pollution, and increased complexity) still linger.
Luckily, we’ve got 100% alternatives to JavaScript on the server side. Here are a few:
1. Go (Golang)
Go’s lightweight goroutines allow for highly concurrent, scalable systems without the memory overhead of threads. This language is especially suited for applications that need blazing-fast performance with large-scale traffic.
2. Django (Python)
Django is a favorite when it comes to security. It reduces vulnerabilities like prototype pollution and Redos Attacks (which JavaScript is prone to). While it might not scale like Go, Django is perfect for smaller or security-conscious applications.
3. PHP (Laravel)
PHP has always been a reliable backend language, and its modern framework, Laravel, makes small to medium projects easy to manage. With automatic routing and a great ecosystem of plugins, PHP still has its place in the development world, despite JavaScript's rise.
4. Ruby on Rails
For rapid development, Ruby on Rails offers an elegant, developer-friendly environment. While it might not be the best at handling large-scale applications, it's perfect for small teams aiming for quick, scalable solutions.
The Hidden Costs of JavaScript Frameworks
Using more JavaScript, especially for everything on both the client and server sides, incurs a number of hidden costs. The larger your JavaScript bundle, the more problems you'll face. Here's what you're up against:
- Package Bloat – The more libraries and dependencies you add, the more your final output bloats with unnecessary code.
- Increased Maintenance – Keeping those dependencies up to date creates maintenance overhead and risks breaking your app when libraries undergo major updates.
- Breaking Changes – Framework updates (or even small library updates) might break existing functionality, leaving you scrambling to rewrite significant portions of code.
The Solution? Prioritize Performance and Security
Ultimately, reducing JavaScript isn’t just about avoiding bugs or slow load times—it’s about building web applications that are faster, simpler, and more secure. By offloading heavy computation to WebAssembly, handling UI updates natively with HTMX, and moving backend logic to safer languages like Go or Python, you'll drastically improve your web projects.
While cutting out JavaScript completely might not be feasible for everyone, reducing JavaScript as much as possible is definitely worth pursuing. It’s all about using modern alternatives to avoid turning JavaScript into a developer's bottleneck.
Conclusion
Whether you aim to minimize JavaScript on the client or the server, you have the power to make your web applications leaner, faster, and more secure. HTMX and WebAssembly offer exciting alternatives for JavaScript-heavy frontend development, while Go, Django, and Laravel are viable options for the backend.
JavaScript is here to stay, but we don’t need to rely on it for everything. By strategically reducing JavaScript’s footprint, we can finally build apps that perform better and scale seamlessly.
Ready to reduce your JavaScript and take control of your web apps? Start experimenting today!
Top comments (1)
The problem is using not using the right tool for the job. Javascript is not for backend, mobile or desktop apps. Electronjs, node js are good examples of this. And reactjs is a good example of bloat you talked about. Svelte for example is a good example of using javascript in a good way.
HTMX is a good example, but WASM is something I am not sure about. IMO, WASM is the industry's answer to ignoring native desktop apps so as to make everything in cloud. Just like nodejs is the answer for people to use JS in the backend.
Using the right tool is the answer. Just look at PHP, it is just syntactically super similar and easy to pick up for someone who knows JS. Boom, NO nodejs limitations. It can scale like crazy. Have features for almost all the pain points of dates and array methods JS has (just an example).
I just published Life of a blog - blogging in 2024 and beyond which talks about blogging and indieweb. As someone who is inspired by Writing HTML in HTML by John Ankarström, I can't shake the fact that, I could just write raw html files, put it in a git repo and host the static site in Netlify. It's not that bad if you think about it.
Once you setup a system for yourself with this setup, HTML is not going anywhere. No breaking changes. No npm update. No hugo's deprecated features. This has been making me think. It took a hell a lot of time for me to learn hugo, works it it works, for my website. What if I had put that effort in a setup for writing HTML files? Is it gonna be that bad?
All of this could be achieved somehow if I put in my effort with Hugo. But my goodness, it would be dead simple with just raw HTML files. We do complicate things a lot in the name of efficiency. But in reality what we are getting is a faster jumpstart with long term worries.