Would the web be better without JavaScript?

This resource is a wikidebate, a collaborative effort to gather and organize all arguments on a given issue. It is a tool of argument analysis or pro-and-con analysis. This is not a place to defend your preferred points of view, but original arguments are allowed and welcome. See the Wikidebate guidelines for more.

Would the web be better without JavaScript? JavaScript is not necessary for every single aspect of Web 2.0; e.g. there can be Wikipedia without JavaScript.

Related questions: Should the government regulate excessive and unnecessary placement of JavaScript into web pages? Should the public demand websites to publish something like excessive JavaScript use analysis (EJUA) reports? Should web browsers have a ready-made "No JavaScript" button with an icon next to "home" to make it very easy to browse without JavaScript on a per-website basis?

The web would be better without JavaScript

Pro

• Pro Loading speed of pages would often greatly improve, with no substantive loss of functionality. Example pages are online newspaper pages. Even web email is possible without JavaScript.
• Pro Web security would improve: plain HTML without JavaScript is not executable code.
• Pro As a bonus of abandoning JavaScript-based web applications, we would get rid of the bloat of Electron-based applications, which as basically web applications packaged as native executables by provision of a dedicated web browser instance coupled with the requisite JavaScript code and other supporting files, e.g. images.
•  Comment Even if it turns out doing without JavaScript entirely is impractical, doing without it as far as possible is practical and only requires to overcome certain mindset.

Con

• Con Web applications that truly demand JavaScript, such as Google Earth and Desmos Graphing Calculator, would be impossible.
  • Objection Absent the possibility of a web application, the application provider could provide a native executable, often providing a much better experience than the web application. Absent the web alternative, the application provider would have a strong incentive to do so, provided it can sustain the chosen business model, e.g. advertisement-based one. Google Earth is a case in point: the native executable for Windows is so much better.
    • Objection That would not work across all operating systems platforms, e.g. various varieties of Linux. And for Linux, there is no single executable platform for which to provide an executable.
      • Objection Google Earth is available for Linux, so this is doable.
    • Objection There is a great convenience in hooking up a web application and trying it out or using it occasionally without having to install anything locally.
  • Objection One could use Flash instead of JavaScript; and typically, webs that do not really need highly interactive functionality would not use Flash.
    • Objection That would not work on Apple's Flash-disabled i-devices.
    • Objection The Flash plugin presents an additional area of security risk exposure.
  •  Comment There is a whole separate debate to be had whether web applications are a good thing, e.g. given that they change as soon as the application provider changes them, unlike a locally installed executable.
• Con Relatively simple web features that are not demanding on resources would be impossible, e.g. collapsible menus or collapsible sections of information.
  • Objection These features are relatively easy to do without.
  • Objection That's a good thing from the perspective of users who dislike these kinds of features.
• Con One can disable JavaScript on Websites and selectively reallow it using the NoScript browser extension.
• Con Modern UIs and good-looking efficient or engaging web interfaces require Javascript.

Further reading

• I Turned Off JavaScript for a Whole Week and It Was Glorious, 2015, wired.com
• Google Earth, earth.google.com
• Desmos Graphing calculator, desmos.com