Probably because most users would prefer that the sites they visit actually work.
Supporting other embedded languages might be nice, but of course, unless all the major browsers also support the same, sites would have to provide an alternative in javascript for everybody else.
Not supporting javascript at all when it's integrated so deeply into the web, when you will doubtless be able to simply turn it off if you want, seems unreasonable.
For better or worse, the web is becoming a platform for distributing javascript binaries which execute in the browser. Unlike most other platforms, however, at least you can turn it off or view the source or block parts of it if you like.
Every site should be able to function normally without JS. Granted that doesn't necessarily hold true for web apps, but for regular sites they shouldn't lose functionality because somebody has JS disabled (or doesn't have it at all!)
I agree with you. I have js disabled by default and every time I run up against a site that uses client-side templating I find it incredibly annoying - I understand the rationale behind it but it's still annoying how many things tend to break without javascript.
However, you can't design a browser around an expectation of what the web should be like.
And anyway, it could be worse. If there were no javascript we would all be complaining about the dominance of VBScript in the browser.
I really hope that people start installing and testing against minimal browsers.
Modern browsers are fucking huge. Obviously they do very much more than browsers used to, but most of the time I really am just reading text and I don't want a bad designer's idea of novel UI to get in the way.
Sadly it seems like hundreds of years of design iteration for the printed word are being weakened.
