I wrote that remark, and I was not. I’m not even using w3m right now, and observe that the comment I replied to was more general, relating to all browsing without Javascript.
Extreme positions and interpretations are for nutters.
In the specific case of Google Drive access, I like the Ruby client.
The Ruby Client is great for data storage and retrieval, but I meant editing Drive docs (sheets, docs, etc.). Colleagues don't appreciate it when I drop their doc into another editor instead of commenting / recommending corrections in-place
Oh, for sure. I don't perceive those as websites, though. Sheets and Docs et al are basically thick-client office applications that happen to be written in Javascript. In this circumstance I just use Chrome since it's Google's official runtime. Or the "native" apps on a tablet, which I'd wager are just a packaged variant of the same code.
I see this as congruent to the old-school Lotus Notes/Domino architecture, and not really about the web at all.
There's no value in being an ideologue about it. My reasons for browsing with JS disabled-by-default are fourfold: 1. to defeat many/most active tracking methods, 2. as a sort of passive ad blocker, 3. because it's very often much faster, and 4. for written content JS dependence is moderately correlated to a poor S:N ratio. None of that has much bearing on an office application.
