I’ve tried to wrap my head around these poorly implemented Web applications to find out the real inspiration behind them.
Trying to implement something like GMail without javascript would just be a waste of time. It makes sense to talk about building sites focused on static content and simple forms without a dependence on javascript but the new breed of web applications require javascript. To dismiss them as "poorly implemented" is put dogma before practice.
The HTML-only version is a completely different app. I think the gp meant that sometimes it is not possible to code an application to degrade gracefully. If you want a no-js version you have to code that (almost) from scratch. And gmail is a perfect example for that.
As an earlier poster pointed out, GMail's non-js app is a totally different app, and let's be honest, it's a giant pain to use compared to the js version, and for most people it wouldn't have been worth the expenditure to make. GMail wouldn't have caught on if it were just the pure HTML version. Degradation is nothing but a nice-to-have for an app like that.
Yes, I'm aware of the HTML-only version. No, gmail wouldn't matter if it didn't leverage javascript to build a client that competes with, and in some ways surpasses, desktop mail clients.
Apps are moving off the desktop and onto the web thanks to the new HTML standards and modern javascript environments. To talk about "degrading" these gracefully is to live in the past. These aren't "sites" - they're applications.
Trying to implement something like GMail without javascript would just be a waste of time. It makes sense to talk about building sites focused on static content and simple forms without a dependence on javascript but the new breed of web applications require javascript. To dismiss them as "poorly implemented" is put dogma before practice.