There are 3 pages, with 9 live sites. There are many more, but not everybody decides to post their sites to the powered by section. We'll be starting a push to get NOLOH authors to post their sites there in the near future.
Furthermore, if you would've actually taken the time to read through our site, you would see that NOLOH does in fact render content without JS, if the developer chooses, which we're constantly improving. You can read our blog for more information.
It's somewhat shocking that this is what HN has come down to. Writing a reply without actually verifying your comment. I'm starting to think I don't belong here anymore, it's starting to feel like high school all over again.
As I mentioned earlier it's at the developer's discretion as to whether they want to enable JS degradation or not. Sometimes when an application is sufficiently complex a developer may choose not to, or not have certain actions map to links.
You shouldn't base your assumptions on one implementation, but rather, read what the technology claims to do and then try it so you can actually see, rather than just slash and burn.
It's people like you that really make me wonder whether we should even continue down the standards based route, or continue to support text-based browsers, as mentioned in our latest blog posts http://dev.noloh.com/#/blog/, or http://dev.noloh.com/?/blog/ for you. Not a single client or user has ever asked for such features, but we always get complaints from the die-hards. So we work and implement it, to what effect? Next you'll complain that some app that uses NOLOH doesn't do XYZ. There's nothing we can do about that, we can't force users to upgrade, or implement a feature, we can only offer it.
Clearly it doesn't matter what we do, or how compatible we try to be, you won't care, won't listen, and won't actually try it.
