Develop Reference

Loading a web page how to auto-detect if it has JS. If disabled, switch to HTML

If an user has installed the JavaScript plug-in but is disabled (for security reasons, etc. using no-script or something similar) is there a way to auto-detect (with code, you could suggest the language) that you have JS BUT disabled? If so, switch automatically to the HTML version of the page.
I saw some posts (How to detect if JavaScript is disabled?) but I'm willing to do the switch automatically. Not printing a message saying that "you not have JS enabled" or so on (also, the solution for that question, is the most probable?).
(currently I'm not coding, just asking for general culture question)

The standard approach to this is to serve up the HTML version of the page by default, then use JavaScript to layer extra functionality on top.
This is known as progressive enhancement and is a core part of unobtrusive JavaScript.

No. If the browser does not want to expose this capability (e.g. disabled, disabled through add-on) you cannot detect it.
<noscript> tag is all you have.
https://developer.mozilla.org/en/HTML/Element/noscript

It has a mention of <noscript>...</noscript>. Use that.

Is there an alternative to JavaScript for writing client-side web application code?

I want to program my xhtml Web Applications without javascript.
What are the alternatives for creating interactive xhtml web applications?
Perhaps java applets which do the tasks of javascript?
Or is there another way?
Thanks for any help!
Javascript is hard to debug, is dynamically typed, strange OOP, could be replaced by any other language when that language will be cut to work at a browser.
I would also like some typesafety in my code what can discover many bugs before running the code.
--EDIT 2--
Have a look at http://www.scala-js.org/.
---EDIT---
So for now there is no real alternative to javascript what is as flexible, widespread and applicable.
What i think is applicable are frameworks/tools who compile one language to another like GWT or coffescript.
Thank you for the detailed answers. The reason for my question was, that web development is getting more complex every day. I prefer languages like Java for stable error outlining and type safety. JavaScript on the other hand is (in my opinion) mysterious in its ways and hard to debug (browser incompatibilities, silent errors, unintuitive operands, dynamic typing,....). I developed Websites with JS for years now and it feels horrible to me due to such debugging problems and code management. Yet the libraries are quite powerful and ease much of the work.

To have an interactive site you need something that can execute code on the client machine.
This is (at the moment) usually JavaScript. In the past this would have also included Flash or Silverlight (both of which are now on the wane).
JavaScript has a big advantage in that it can easily manipulate the HTML elements directly. While it is possible to do that with Silverlight it's not as easy as Silverlight is designed primarily to build self-contained objects.

Google Web Toolkit GWT lets you write java code which compiles to client-side xhtml+javascript. It relinquishes the page-based standard web approach for a more desktop-like interaction (if I remember correctly the API is somewhat similar to many desktop windowing toolkits).
You may (but don't have to) also develop the (java) server logic and have some client-server communication baked in for you by the compiler.
Have a look at http://code.google.com/intl/it-IT/webtoolkit/

Some JavaScript alternatives:
Flash
Silverlight
Java applets
This is not a recommendation, just a list.
If you're really that allergic to JavaScript, there are a number of frameworks that let you write server-side code which generates the JS for you, as other answers mention.

Check out Google Dart - it has reached 1.0 recently, and has started standardization process few days ago (ECMA TC52). It also compatible with currently available browser via highly optimizing dart2js translator, so you can start using it right now :). Much more sane language than JavaScript, IMO.
More can find more information on the official page here: https://www.dartlang.org/ (tools, documentation, sample code, tutorials), and there is also nice introductory video on the YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqsU3TbUw_s.

As well as applets you have Adobe Flash, Microsoft Silverlight, shortly Chrome NACL. None of these interact with the HTML DOM as seamlessly as JavaScript though.

One thing you can do is simply have the server-side code do all of the processing. You limit yourself to having only CSS available for interactivity, but you can still do just about everything by loading a new page.

If you're considering java applets, then I guess it's necessary to mention Flash and Silverlight (*).
Of course, there are "interactive" web applications that don't use javascript... they use postback. But I don't think this is what you mean.
If you want to target just Internet Explorer, you can use VBScript (Microsoft's proprietary javascript) or even ActiveX. But I doubt that's what you mean, too.
So the onus is on you to answer — why not javascript?
(*) I guess.

I'd be very interested to know what your reasons are for not wanting to use Javascript? The answer to that question will make a big difference to how your question should be answered.
The Javascript language is actually quite powerful. Yes, it does have some quirks, but so do all other languages. A lot of the perceived "problems" with Javascript development in the browser are actually people having issues with the DOM rather than Javascript itself. The DOM, on the other hand is where a lot of the shortcomings and the cross browser issues crop up.
If this is where your problems lie, then you may be better off using a Javascript library such as JQuery, which abstracts away a lot of the direct access to the DOM, and resolves a lot of the cross-browser issues.
If you're using the latest browsers, a lot of the simple effects that previously required Javascript can now be done using CSS. drop-down menus, tabsets, fading, rotation and transition effects. All of this can be done with CSS. However most of them are quite new, and not available in all browsers currently in common use, so you would be better off sticking to Javascript for at least some of them for the time being. Even when they are ready for mainstream use, you'll still need some Javascript to hook them all together.
If you do really have a burning desire to develop using a language other than Javascript, then as you already pointed out, there are other options for programming on the web, such as Java applets. There's also ActiveX controls, Flash and Silverlight, and a few others. However none of them are universally available to all users in the way that Javascript is.
All of them require browser plug-ins of one sort or another, and all of them have issues with users who don't want to install them or corporate environments that don't allow them to be installed. In the case of technologies like ActiveX, they may only be available on certain browsers and operating systems, and (again like ActiveX) they often have security issues.
The only real reason that most of these other technologies existed in the first place was to fill a gap in the capabilities of the browsers at the time. All of these capability issues have now been resolved -- with HTML5 and related technologies driven by Javascript, Flash and Silverlight have been rendered obsolete; ActiveX controls were considered obsolete long ago; and when was the last time you saw a Java applet in mainstream use?
The bottom line is that the browser world is moving very rapidly away from any client-side code other than Javascript, and there are very good reasons for that.

Use pyjamas (google it), you can write normal python code and have it compiled as javascript so you get the best of both worlds, the power and expressiveness of python and the ubiquity of javascript.
Also keep an eye on the Falcon project by Adobe, it's an experimental compiler which translates actionscript 3 (a very powerful language compared to plain javascript) and the flex framework to javascript.
You can also try GWT by Google, where java is used as the client side building code (and yes, it also gets compiled to native javascript).

If it runs on the client's computer and can modify the DOM, it can work. JavaScript is the most widely supported so it'll work out-of-the-box for many people.
Basically, anything which functions like JavaScript can replace it.
Flash can perform basically everything that JavaScript can (graphically, but it can't modify the DOM), but if the user doesn't have Flash Player installed, you're out of luck.
Java can also work, but the same concept applies: if the user doesn't have JRE (or a similar machine)
Silverlight is similar to Flash, but much less supported (I can barely get it to work on my Linux box)
Just curious: why are you looking to replace JavaScript with something else?

This may seem inane, but I actually like using jQuery much better than JavaScript. It makes event handling and Ajax very simple.

Should I worry about javascript support?

I've developed a ajax enabled site. However, the site does not currently work without javascript. The site works well on any browser that I've tested as well as iPhone/Nokia phones.
However, should I still worry about javascript support?
I know there are techniques that would get my site to work both with or without javascript, but the refactoring would require some time.
Edit: This application is targeted for our customers that will be using the the system to fill in and handle forms. Professional use mostly.

Javascript is Huge now and since facebook and other large JS Based site, browsers have pushed out new innovations to deal with the latest web changes when it comes to JS
Because of this JavaScript is widely supported and you should not worry dramatically but it still needs to be delt with.
A Simple <noscript> tag to display a message to a user telling them they need javascript to continue
<noscript>
Please enable javascript to use this site
</noscript>
Keep checking your analytics software such as google, mint etc to see what your visitors are using.
That will help you decide how much you have to worry about it
A way to Track non JavaScript enabled browsers is like so
<noscript><img src="noscript.php" /></noscript>
This will load a php file as an image!
the php file
<?php
//Track the user details here inside your database or whatever so you can then see.
//Here send back a 1x1 pixal so the DOM IS ok and to reduce load
$pxl= imagecreate( 1, 1);
header( "Content-type: image/png" );
imagepng( $pxl);
imagedestroy( $pxl);
?>

You could display a message to users with javascript disabled saying that the site will not work properly:
<noscript>
Hey, it seems you have Javascript disabled. Get out of my lawn!
</noscript>
If this is a big deal or not depends on your target audience.

You should always try to keep in mind that a certain percentage of endusers disables javascript in their browser. On the other hand most modern sites don't work anymore or don't always degrade gracefully. It's up to you to either convince your users to enable javascript or to create at least a page with minimal functionality which can be run without javascript.
Grz, Kris.

Most browser today have javascript enabled. One thing to keep in mind is that crawlers/spiders from for example google do not have javascript on.

This depends entirely on your users.
If you can make sure your users browser supports JavaScript, then it's up to you to ensure the actual code is valid and complies to JavaScript standards.
Many argue that pages has be readable by blind people and have all kinds of fallback options, but this depends on your users, and what you require of them.
If you really have to support all kind of phones, and weird devices, just create a separate front-end.

AFAIK, Google bot does not support JavaScript. So, if you want your site to be indexed by search engines, make content accessible without JavaScript.

It depends.
If you're expecting good chunk of traffic from the mobile web-browsers then yes, you must refactor the website to make sure it works well with those client. If majority of the traffic is coming from rich desktop web browsers then, it shouldn't be problem.

Is it worth it to code different functionality for users with javascript disabled?

I'm currently building a project and I would like to make use of some simple javascript - I know some people have it disabled to prevent XSS and other things. Should I...
a) Use the simple javascript, those users with it disabled are missing out
b) Don't use the simple javascript, users with it enabled have to click a little more
c) Code both javascript-enabled and javascript-disabled functionality
I'm not really sure as the web is always changing, what do you recommend?

Degrade gracefully - make sure the site works without JavaScript, then add bells and whistles for those with JavaScript enabled.

Everyone else has committed good comments, but there are a few other considerations to make.
Sometimes the javascript will be hosted on a different domain, and be prone to timeout.
Sometimes that domain may become inacessible, while your site remains accessible. Its not good to have your site completely stack itself in this scenario.
For this reason, "blocking" scripts ( ie: document write inline ) like that present in google's tracker, should be avoided, or at very least, should go as late in the page as possible so the page renders whether or not the domain is timing out requests or not.
If you happen to be serving JS from a broken/malicious server, by intent or by accident, one can halt page rendering simply by having a script that serves that javascript which just calls "sleep(forever)" once its sent all the headers.
Some People Use NoScript
Like the above problem, sometimes the clients environment may block certain script sources, be it the users choosing, or other reasons ( ie: browser security satisfactions, odd antivirus/anti-malware apps ). The most popular and controllable instance of this is NoScript, and I myself paranoidly block some of the popular tracking/advertising services with it ( some proxy servers will do this too ).
However, if a site is not well designed, the failing of one script to load still executes code that was dependant on that script being present, which yeilds errors and stops everything working.
My recommendation is :
Use Firebug
Use NoScript and block out everything --> See Site still works
Enable core site scripts that you cant' do without for anything --> See site still works and firebug doesn't whine.
Enable 3rd party stuff --> See site still works and firebug doesn't whine.
There are a lot of other complications that can crop up, but satisfying the above 2 should solve most of them. Just assume that, for whatever reason, one or more resources that comprise a page are viable to spontaneously disappear ( they do, all the time ), and you want the page to "survive" this problem as amicably as possible. For the problems that may persist for < 10 seconds, its not so bad, refresh the page and its fixed, but if its a problem that can occur, and severley hamper usability for an hour or more at a time.
In essence, instead of thinking "oh, theres the edge case users that don't have javascript", try thinking more a long the lines of "its really easy to have something go wrong, and have ALL of our users with broken javascript. Ouch! Lets try make it so we dont' really hose ourself when that does happen"
( I've seen IE updates get rolled out and hose javascript for that entire browser until the people whom wrote the scripts find a workaround. Losing all your IE customers is not a good thing )
:set sarcasm
:set ignoreSpelling
:set iq=76
Don't worry, its only a 5% Niché Market
Nobody cares about targeting Niché markets right? All those funny propeller heads running lynx in their geeky stupid linoox cpus, spending all their time on the intarwebs surfing because they have nothing better to do with their life or money? the crazy security paranoid nerds disabling javascript left and right because they don't like it?
Nobody wants them as your primary customer now do they?
Niché markets. Pfft. Who cares!
:set nosarcasm

Consider your audience
"Degrade gracefully" is generally the best answer. But lots of sites now depend on JS - especially AJAX.
Consider your audience. If your site is aimed at extremely tech-savvy people, the chances of them not having javascript are small, and you can notify them to turn it on if necessary.
If your audience may access your site with mobile devices, don't assume they have JavaScript, and don't even assume they support CSS properly. Aim to degrade gracefully all the way down to bare HTML.

I've learned a lot from my question: What's With Those Do-Not-Use Javascript People
Go with Ajax and Web 2.0. It's the way the web is going and it's wonderful. Isn't Stackoverflow great to be on? It's not quite as nice with your Javascript turned off.
Once you have your site ready, but before you let it go live, test it with Javascript off, and just add whatever you feel you need to make your site appear and function to them. You only need to add what you feel is essential.
Remember, except for visually impared people using screen readers, the others have chosen to turn javascript off. They can also choose to trust your site and turn javascript on for your site if they want to use all the functionality you have. It really is their choice.

As other have said, it should "degrade gracefully".
In other works, it must work without Javascript (period). It doesn't have to work well. The folks who've disabled Javascript know the limitations that causes and have accepted them. But if you are trying to sell them something, it's important that they can still buy it.
On the site I'm designing, there's a javascript-based fly-out menu. With Javascript off, all the flyouts are always open. It doesn't look as cool as it would with JS, but it can still be used to navigate the site.

It depends on how much time you have to develop and maintain both solutions, and how much the non-javascript users are worth to you.
My e-commerce site relies heavily on javascript, and in over a year and a half, I've not received a single complaint.
In fact, I don't think I've seen a single visitor with javascript disabled in any of logs since I started.
That doesn't mean they're not out there. It just means that either (a) they're a tiny percentage, (b) they're not interested in what I'm selling, or (c) both of the above.

Code your web site with support for the bare minimum kind of browser. Then more people can use your site without frustration even if they don't have all the bells and whistles--like Flash, Javascript, and Java--enabled. It may not be practical to continue support for ancient browsers, say Netscape Navigator 4, because a user can be reasonably expected to keep their computer up-to-date. However, features like Javascript, Flash, and Java can be security holes in old or modern browsers, as well as being an annoyance.
Neither of my parents keep Javascript or Flash enabled because they've had too many experiences with them slowing down their already slow connection, crashing their browsers, or being more of an annoyance on sites that use it stupidly (which is a lot of them...) than a useful feature. It's just bad design if, for example, your form requires an AJAX call be made and you can't actually hit a submit button to send the form when Javascript is disabled.
My mother was recently quite frustrated to discover that she is now unable to click through eBay results pages because each one requires Javascript. The only way she can see the next page of results is to turn on Javascript or to show more results per page. Now what reason would there be for page links to require Javascript while the 'results per page' links are just plain links? They should all be plain old HTML links. Maybe Javascript could be used to add some whiz-bang to the navigation, but a user should not be punished with a bad interface for having Javascript disabled. It's stupid on eBay's part, and it causes undue hassle for their users.

I am one of those that uses 'No-Script.' And I can tell you that sites that use javascript and don't work without it enabled is extremely annoying, stackOverflow... No we don't expect it to be very fancy, if I upvote load a new page that says "Thank you."
We expect to be able to use the site with reasonable limitations, don't ever display a page that says JS must be enabled, though, even if the site is crap without it. And yes if your site convinces us to stay we will enable. A function that isn't in common use on the site can also require javascript.
Please note that your site should also look good with no JS or CSS, if nothing else it is good for Bots.
As others have pointed out some phones don't have JS, this is changing but another good reason to have reasonable non-JS. I suggest code with non-JS and add JS after the former works, there are good ways where JS can work with the non-JS layout.

It helps me in my implementations to think about it as "progressive enhancement" rather than graceful degradation. Degradation often leads you to figure out how to make it work w/o js after it is implemented, instead of making a baseline and enhancing with js.

It is essential to at least test your website is functional when JavaScript is turned off.
As orip says, degrading gracefully is very important. It should be vital that your page both looks nice and functions when JavaScript is disabled.

For a standard web site that is primarily intended for conveying information, degrade gracefully always.
For web applications:
When building a web application for a standard internet audience, I would keep the three following facts in mind:
95%-97% of potential users will have JavaScript enabled.
At times established users will need to access functionality when JavaScript is not available.
3%-5% of potential users will have JavaScript intentionally disabled.
Given fact one, if you believe that building a JavaScript reliant web application will deliver a superior user experience, then by all means do it. Doing so may help you accumulate users.
However, given fact two, you should always provide a means by which your users can access core functionality without JavaScript. Do you need to offer every single feature? Probably not. But a user should be able to get his or her work done. This will keep your users happy when they find themselves temporarily without JavaScript.
Given fact three, I would also provide an in depth tour as an attempt to entice these users to enable JavaScript.
As an aside, one of my most favorite web applications, Remember The Milk follows this approach. Also, Google's Calendar application is unusable without JavaScript. So JavaScript reliant web apps are on the rise and that trend is probably unstoppable. In my opinion this is a good thing.
(Do keep in mind that JavaScript make Accessbility a bigger problem than it is already. Please do make an effort to make your apps usable by those with disabilities.)

As said before, it depends on your target audience.
If I'm part of it, you want to make sure that your site works (if not ideally) on my phone, and that it gives me reason to turn Javascript on when I surf there with it off. Nobody expects full functionality with Javascript disabled, and anybody who uses their phone to access websites expects some issues, but you need to at least provide teasers. For a web store, make sure customers can see at least some merchandise anyway, even if they can't buy without Javascript.

How to detect (using .ASPX) if Javascript is enabled on browser

I'm thinking this might be a quick and easy way to lower the form spam on our site just a little bit. The idea being that (I have read) spammers aren't running with javascript enabled. (Or at least they are accessing your website without running javascript. I.e., they aren't browsing up to it in IE or FF.
I can use .asp or .aspx.

The simplest way is to set a cookie via javascript and check for it on postback.However, if you're looking to minimize spam you should actually have the browser perform a simple task which requires javascript execution. See Phil Haack's "Invisibile Captcha Validator" control, which has since been included in his Subkismet library: http://haacked.com/archive/2006/09/26/Lightweight_Invisible_CAPTCHA_Validator_Control.aspx

In .net, you can use Request.Browser.JavaScript to detect if the browser supports JavaScript. However, the user may still have Javascript disabled. An ugly way to check to see if Javascript is enabled, is to use window.location to redirect to page.aspx?jscript=true, and then check Request.Querystring for that value.

So, you want to force users to use JavaScript in order to use your site? I'd rather just use a simple Captcha. If you aren't a big-name site, you can get away with some relatively simple Captchas.
That's how we reduced spam at our site.

To be honest, you shouldn't need to use a server-side language to detect javascript, and furthermore spammers are not necessarily not running javascript. (sorry about the double-negative) Your objective is good, but your approach is wrong - implementing a CAPTCHA, as suggested by a few of our peers, would be a great way to handle this.

I see you've accepted the noscript answer, but how will you use this to fight spam? noscript will allow you to add special content for users without JS, but unless you're generating the rest of your site in JS, it will still be available to user agents without JS.
A captcha of some sort is still likely the best bet. Ultimately, you're trying to get the user agent to prove that it's being controlled by a human, so do your best to make it prove that actual fact, instead of something else. Screen readers for the visually impaired typically go without Javascript, too, and many people browsing from mobile devices have Javascript disabled to speed things up.