> Overreliance on JS is an architectural flaw, not a cost-saving measure.
While i (somewhat) agree, i don't think that this is a charitable take.
Relying on heavy JS libraries with a large attack surface would be an architectural flaw. Using JS for your front end is your architecture. Probably not a choice that you approve of, however one that they've made nonetheless.
Of course, one can talk of a possible middle ground in the form of interesting projects like LibreJS, but those haven't exactly gained much popularity either, unfortunately: https://www.gnu.org/software/librejs/
Sadly the people who actually turn off JS and the reasons for doing this (as well as any sort of developer advocacy) are the minority [1][2] and therefore are largely irrelevant and unheard, even if the arguments are sometimes pretty sound (especially things like battery usage).
That position has largely lost out and i guess most of us now just need to deal with the consequences of it in our daily lives where using JS frameworks can also just be easier, but even if it isn't (e.g. React and Redux), then we just have to bite the bullet and deal with it.
I call BS. Overreliance on JS is an architectural flaw, not a cost-saving measure.