Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Cloud Programming

Web Apps Language Opa Gets a Web-Based IDE 83

Posted by timothy
from the made-easy dept.
First time accepted submitter koper writes "The new programming language Opa makes web programming easier by providing a one-tier one-language-for-everything approach. Now it goes one step further by providing a (very-minimalistic for now) web-based IDE that allows users to compile & deploy Opa programs in one click in your web browser. Give it a spin!"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Web Apps Language Opa Gets a Web-Based IDE

Comments Filter:
  • It's nice to see someone presenting an honest assessment of their technology's actual capabilities instead of trying to spin it into something more than it is with buzzwords like "artificial intelligence".

    "Opa is a concise and elegant language for writing distributed web applications."

    It looks tighter than something like Java or C#, but it's still tied to manipulation of the DOM structures through, so it does require a solid understanding of the underlying web technologies, XML, and HTML. I don't thin

    • If 90% of all web apps are the same, a language (or in case of Opa, it should probably be called a web application build system) can be the magic bullet for 80%.

    • Google Web Toolkit allows you to create nice web client applications without any significant knowledge of HTML or CSS. Instead, you have to know the GWT Java classes (not JavaScript; it gets translated into that automagically). I used it in a real project and had to deal with CSS only to make it "nice to see".
      • by msobkow (48369)

        My point is that you are providing the human intelligence to work with that tool. You do the layouts, you tie it to data, even if it's at a higher level than raw HTML, CSS, and Javascript. Neuron Data's Open Interface used to be an abstract GUI toolkit that ran on Unix/X-11 systems, Windows, and Apple MacOS. You could stick with their abstract widgets and knock off an interface pretty quickly, but if you needed to do real customization, the hooks were still there to extend and customize how things looke

        • Indeed GWT is not a panacea. But it can definitely be called a general-purpose programming environment for client/server applications, with the client running as a browser application on a broad base of browsers without any browser-specific coding required. It is also true that because it is general-purpose, the programmer must create "data-bindings" from widgets to database tables explicitly, if his application requires this. But how should it be done differently, if GWT is supposed to be the basis of Goog
    • Is it even possible to write a web app in ASM? I think so.
      • by funfail (970288)

        At the end, everything is written in ASM...

      • ..you can write a web app in assembly language. It will just be more time-consuming do develop than using perl, C#, Java, GWT or similar technologies. It will probably be much smaller in memory footprint and much faster in execution perfomance, though. I guess the number of security problems will also be higher with assembly language, similar to using C.
  • by Anonymous Coward

    Makes it sound very outmoded in Dutch, German, and perhaps a few other languages around the world.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      You've seen nothing yet. Think Japanese, "Oppai"

    • by Zumbs (1241138)
      In Greek Opa is similar to Spanish Olé.
      • by Anonymous Coward

        In spanish (argentina) opa means stupid/dumb.

        Also, the licence is AGPL, for a programming language that kind of restrict almost all serious use.

        Good luck selling your language dude!

  • by networkz (27842) on Saturday October 22, 2011 @04:58PM (#37806098) Journal

    Neat, but that site wont work with NoScript installed unless you allow XSS.

    Not a huge problem for some, but is a deal breaker for me.

    unless there's a workaround?

    • by ThurstonMoore (605470) on Saturday October 22, 2011 @05:01PM (#37806116)

      Workaround, disable no-script.

    • by msobkow (48369)

      Are you seriously complaining that Javascript enabled technology won't work with NoScript blocking Javascript from running?

      Man, I've had some good stuff in my day, but I want some of whatever you're smoking!

      • by networkz (27842)

        You're confusing running Noscript, and it's per-site blocking - with XSS blocking which applies to all sites, not just one.

        Might want to read up on NoScript, babes!

        • by networkz (27842)

          Anti-XSS protection exceptions however, are not a one-click solution. So hence it being a deal breaker.

  • I get the conceptual framework of deploying a single "binary" to everything.

    Here's what I don't get: Why invent a new language, bound to a framework and to a specific target application, rather than adapting an existing language to the task? What can I do with Opa that I can't with JavaScript?

  • by Anonymous Coward

    I've actually tried to follow through the site - installing the compiler, reading the manual and trying it out. First impressions:

    1. The language itself is just a bastard sorry child of ocaml and erlang.
    2. Both parents are specific languages with steep learning curve.
    3. Using powerful paradigms with necessary horrible syntax makes no sense here - especially when webapp developers are your target audience.
    4. Opa brings a lot of hidden "gay magic" (all-in-one binary, the whole client/server rpc thing, object

  • Opa is a really interesting design but it's AGPL, so it can't be used for any closed-source apps, even if hosted on a server. Maybe they will dual-license it in future, but right now it's only for open source work.

  • by cshark (673578) on Sunday October 23, 2011 @02:45AM (#37808212)

    Okay, so this is the sixth new platform I've reviewed in the last year that has its own built in web server. Why? It's a complete pain in the ass to manage platforms that are built this way. Most of the time, the servers they come with are not as good for general purpose use as Apache, and well, because they require their own servers... you can't really run them on a traditional server if you wanted to. Now, I understand the need and desire to change the paradigm. I've been there. I've tried to do it. But the web server paradigm EVERYONE ELSE USES is not broken. Why the hell is everyone trying to replace it with something that is untested, that doesn't work as well? Why can't someone design a precise, straight forward language that plugs into my web server, which allows me to scale and thread properly to billions of connections? I'm not asking for a lot. Other than I'm asking for a lot. Apparently.

    • by Riskable (19437)

      We had what you prefer for like a decade now and you know what? It sucks. Like PHP is somehow the the pinnacle of how application development should be. Hah!

      Not to mention the fact that managing Apache httpd or Nginx with generic language "plugins" is about as intuitive as tying your shoes using a robotic atm controlled by a BlackBerry.

      Also, please tell me how this model of development "doesn't work well?" If it doesn't work well no one will use it. Problem solved!

      Why don't you take a break from this old sc

    • Take a look at Google Web Toolkit. The default model is to use Java (not JavaScript; Java is translated into JS for the client side) both one the client and the server side. But if you are not happy with this model, you can of course use a different language/runtime on the server (such as Perl, C# or C++). As I said before, it is not a panacea, but a nice model IMO.

Whenever a system becomes completely defined, some damn fool discovers something which either abolishes the system or expands it beyond recognition.

Working...