Web 2.0, Meet JavaScript 2.0

Jeremy Martin writes "Well I suppose it's an undeniable fact about us programmer-types — every now and then we just can't help but get excited about something really nerdy. For me right now, that is definitely JavaScript 2.0. I was just taking a look at the proposed specifications and I am really, truly excited about what we have coming."

v2.0

[Methlin]

Does it have 33% more bugs than v1.5?

Yes

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, we are nerds. But do you really have to rub it in?

JavaScript 2.0, Meet NoScript 2.0

[imtheguru]

... soon.

Javascript

[Anonymous Coward]

alert("keep it simple");

Re:Ugh

[mrbluze]

All of the proposed changes are a step backwards. JavaScript is currently a language with great, clean, semantics and slightly ugly syntax. They want to make the semantics less clean and the syntax even more horrendous.

But wait until Sunday and we'll hear that Javascript 2.0 has arisen and all the stains of previous imperfect languages will be taken away.

Re:Meh.

[netsavior]

it works 95% of the time, every time.

Re:v2.0

[smittyoneeach]

That depends. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECMA_Script [wikipedia.org] is on version four.
To paraphrase Palmerston:

only three people ever understood the Java* numbering schemes: a German professor, who went mad, Prince Albert, who died, and Larry Wall - who, asked to come up with something, promptly wrote a perl script and forgot it.

Re:As long as I got my Framework

[Anonymous Coward]

asyncronous AJAX

Maybe you should use synchronous AJAX instead. Oh, wait...

Interesting evolution

[Anonymous Coward]

As an "old timer", I find it both fascinating and horrifying to watch the evolution of static web pages into "rich applications", shoehorned into the request/response model with a crazy wobbling mass of server-side languages, client-side language(s), browser plug-ins, HTML, DOM, CSS, JSON, XML... God knows what else. It's like GUI and client/server programming didn't exist before and they are trying to reinvent in the most illogical way possible.

Is it humanly possible to make this any more complicated, brittle, or insecure?

Don't answer that... I'm sure somebody's working on it.

Re:Ugh

[mrbluze]

If that means Java will be thrown into the fiery pit, count me in!

Not sure how far we can stretch this analogy before being cut down by lightning, but I'd hazard to guess that Java followers will be forced underground for, I dunno, a couple of hundred years until finally the Bill Gates of the day embraces it and, under the influence of his Javascripting wife, enforces Javascript throughout the civilized world, with all its imperfections. Eventually, several thousand clockcycle-years later there will be an adjustment to Javascript such that any negative references to Javascript 1.0 will be removed and the world will be doomed to relive all the crap that went before.

Re:v2.0

[Gewalt]

While you're at it, do you want to go trolling with any other observations about me that have absolutely no basis in fact?

Well, since you asked: Sure! Why not!

For starters there's your hair. YOU ARE NOT MARGE SIMPSON! That look does not work for you.

Re:v2.0

[Haeleth]

Can you give an example of something you could write in C/C++/Java/Ruby/Perl/Smalltalk/C#/Lisp/Fortran that couldn't be written in Javascript?

Here's some C++ code that can't be written in Javascript:

int main() {
    return *(int*)0;
}