Ajax Is the Buzz of Silicon Valley 336
Carl Bialik from the WSJ writes "Ajax, or 'Asynchronous JavaScript and XML,' is allowing webpages to update as quickly as desktop software, powering applications like Google Maps and attracting money from Silicon Valley investors, including for a collaboration-software company called Zimbra. The Wall Street Journal reports: 'Zimbra's chief executive, Satish Dhamaraj, says that when he started his company in December 2003, "I really thought that Ajax was just a bathroom cleaner." Now his San Mateo, Calif., business has amassed $16 million in funding from venture-capital firms including Accel Partners, Redpoint Ventures and Benchmark Capital, the firm that famously funded eBay Inc. Peter Fenton, an Accel partner, says Ajax "has the chance to change the face of how we look at Web applications" and could boost technology spending by corporations, because Ajax is also being used to develop software for big companies, not just for consumers.'"
Thought that Ajax was just a bathroom cleaner (Score:5, Funny)
So, nitpicking... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:So, nitpicking... (Score:4, Interesting)
Hmm... That's pretty interesting [wikipedia.org]
Re:So, nitpicking... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:So, nitpicking... (Score:4, Informative)
IFrames are not required for AJAX.
All you need to do is have an xmlhttprequest object called by whatever event you like, it can then take the response and then somehow (usally div tag) change the contents of a web page. That's it.
The use of Iframes is 100% optional.
Re:So, nitpicking... (Score:3, Informative)
? The parent poster was giving those two options as alternatives, not as a combination. e.g. if you can't use xmlhttprequest, then you use a hidden iframe to do the background transfers.
Re:So, nitpicking... (Score:4, Informative)
var xmlHttpRequest;
function xmlRequest(url)
{
if (window.XMLHttpRequest) {
xmlHttpRequest = new XMLHttpRequest(); } else {
xmlHttpRequest = new ActiveXObject("Microsoft.XMLHTTP");
}
if (xmlHttpRequest) {
xmlHttpRequest.onreadystatechange = _processXmlResponse;
xmlHttpRequest.open("GET", url, true);
if (window.XMLHttpRequest) {
xmlHttpRequest.send(null);
} else {
xmlHttpRequest.send();
}
}
}
Do the work with the results something like this:
function _processXmlResponse()
{
if (xmlHttpRequest.readyState == 4) {
if (xmlHttpRequest.status == 200) {
} else {
}
}
}
YMMV but this generally worked on my target browsers.
BTW, nice site.
One suggestion when you hit the (+) to open an item it should turn into a (-) to close it from the same place.
Re:So, nitpicking... (Score:3, Interesting)
Which is why the term is meaningless drivel [yafla.com].
Re:So, nitpicking... (Score:5, Insightful)
"AJAX" is so irritating and non-descriptive. It should be clumped with other turds of terminology, like "blog," and ceremoniously flushed down the toilet bowl of language integrity to rid of us these awful, awful buzzwords that make people think they're suddenly technology masters. "OMG I'M USING AJAX D00D BECAUSE OF MY LITTLE SCRIPT TAG SNIPPET, LETS START AN AJAX COMPANY."
No, why don't you shut the fuck up and get out of my Internet!
Sorry...it's been a shitty day, and seeing the word "AJAX" on the front page of Slashdot yet again was the final straw. Rawr.
Re:So, nitpicking... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So, nitpicking... (Score:2)
Which is why AJAX is so stupid. There's more to dynamic webpages than Javascript and XML.
Re:So, nitpicking... (Score:2)
Which is why the success of Ajax surprises me. Why is it taking off where Java applets attempted similar things 10 years ago with great hooplah, and never really caught on? Or is this talk of Ajax just hype?
Re:So, nitpicking... (Score:4, Insightful)
Simple.
Its taking off because firefox can do it without any extra plugins.
Re:So, nitpicking... (Score:4, Informative)
I disagree. (Score:3, Interesting)
Flash won because it did what most people wanted to do (animation and games) faster and more efficiently than Java applets.
Re:So, nitpicking... (Score:3, Informative)
Can we get off the Ajax name issue, please? (Score:5, Insightful)
Look, I know some people are unhappy with the name Ajax. I understand that. I am not a huge fan of the word as used, myself.
But we need to get over it. That's the name we're using. There is no other word for it now. We can rant and rave all we want about how it should be called DHTML or DXHTML, or Dynamic Web Pages, or whatever. Truth be told, the word we use is almost entirely irrelevant so long as we are on the same page as everyone else.
In any case, we did need a need a new word. DHTML has been used for a long time, and describes such a huge variety of techniques that it's not terribly useful when we want to talk about the use of XMLHttpRequest usage and the recent movement towards more complex Javascript effects that abandon the dark-age IE5.5 and other early browsers.
Ajax is as good a word as any, and it's better that web developers have an identifiable term for that kind of tech, so that customers can refer to that general level of interactivity easily. Even if you don't use the exact "AJAX" model as described, when someone says "Ajax" we all know that we think about Prototype, Dojo, Google Maps and other apps along that vein.
Seriously, if you have enough spare energy to rant and rave about the terminology used in the web hype, then you need to find a better outlet for your energy.
Re:Can we get off the Ajax name issue, please? (Score:3, Insightful)
Dynamic web pages were just as good a term, and the big thing is that the term existed before AJAX. Then some clueless tech press bought a buzzword and spread AJAX, so that managers could make money off it.
It's like "Web 2.0." I mean, seriously, what is that? It's the same Web as before. "Oh, but now it's CSS presentation using Javascript to dynamically modify the DOM to provide an instant user interface."
Re:Can we get off the Ajax name issue, please? (Score:2)
Exactly how is this a bad thing? So what if it was given a goofy name? The XMLHTTPRequest is extremely useful and its an open standard. It fills in where people were previously using proprietary technologies.
Re:Not an "open" standard (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Can we get off the Ajax name issue, please? (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, Jesse James Garrett of Adaptive Path coined the term [adaptivepath.com]. Say what you will about Adaptive Path and their self-important website, but clueless they are not.
I don't particularly care how or why the term came into existence, to be honest. What I do care about is meeting my customer's needs. Lik
Re:Can we get off the Ajax name issue, please? (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, I'm aware of that, and it proves my point. Some website invented a term for technologies that already existed, under different terminology, and the tech media adopted it to have a buzzword.
Same with "Web 2.0." It's ridiculous.
DHTML may be more literal, but I fail to see where you get it as more or less descriptive.
Well, for one, DHTML doesn'
Re:So, nitpicking... (Score:2)
"Dynamic HTML or DHTML is a technique of creating interactive web sites by using a combination of the static markup language HTML, a client-side scripting language (such as JavaScript), the style definition language Cascading Style Sheets and the Document Object Model."
The phrase "Dynamic HTML" pretty much sums up what AJAX is, which is nothing more than using Javascript to make server requests and modify the DOM. It's so annoying that for some reason, the press is acting like this
Re:So, nitpicking... (Score:4, Informative)
The interesting part is the first "A" in AJAX, its asynchronus meaning it doesn't require a comlete page refresh to retrieve data not already contained in a web page.
This isn't new, its been around since IE 5.0. What's new is that browsers other than IE support xmlhttprequest object now. This has enabled companies like google to use the technology, thus creating a buzz.
Re:So, nitpicking... (Score:2)
Firefox's adoption XmlHttpRequest didn't "enable" Google to use the technology. It's more that Google's use of it is what caused the other browsers to support it. IE has ~90% market share. People have always been able to use this technology, and in fact, have already.
Re:So, nitpicking... (Score:2)
Google's history shows doesn't wish to only write code for microsoft users. They didn't use xmlhttprequest when it was IE only.
I personally would not have touched xmlhttprequest until I knew it could be used by other browsers. 90%(or is that 85% ?) isn't good enough.
Re:So, nitpicking... (Score:2)
Yes, they did.
Re:So, nitpicking... (Score:2, Interesting)
No way... Ajax is the mountain that I look at out my office window everyday...
http://www.firsttracksonline.com/aspen02.jpg [firsttracksonline.com]
It's starting to look good, BTW. In case anybody cares.
T
Obligatory Link (Score:5, Funny)
Get your AJAX-enabled startup right there!
Re:Obligatory Link (Score:3, Interesting)
JOhn
JIT (Score:5, Funny)
Just wait till XULRunner arrives. (Score:2)
But then again, it may take a while
Re:Just wait till XULRunner arrives. (Score:2)
But XULRunner has AFAIK stalled, and no xulrunner executable has been distributed (yet).
AJAX is just an acculmulation of failures (Score:4, Insightful)
There is nothing special about this other than the incredible amount of sheer dependencies that exist. You cross browser incompatibilities you have inexact everything. This is not a good solution people.
This is also a good example of how bad Java and Sun has failed. If Sun would've opened up Java, let people distribute it, as well as from day 1 enabled easy RMI over HTTP we wouldn't be up to our necks in a horrible mixture of presentation logic and business logic.
So here we are, requiring gargantuan browser which are brought to a halt with this AJAX technology when we had many other technologies which did so much better but failed for various other reasons.
JUST BECAUSE AJAX NOW FINALLY WORKS DOESN'T MEAN IT IS A GOOD SOLUTION.
AJAX is creative glue (Score:5, Informative)
Seriously you build upon the failures that DHTML, HTML, Javascript, XML, XMLHTTRequest and you form a system which requires at least a 1 ghz processor just run a very simple GUI.
AJAX-enabled applications like Google Maps and GMail run fine on my G3 iBook with Safari and OS X 10.4. I don't think they necessarily have to have additional processor requirements on the client side.
Saying DHTML, HTML, Javascript, XML, and XMLHTTRequest are all failures is a little extreme. Saying each fails at being everything is 100% correct and 200% redundant - nothing is everything. I applaud the use of XML and Javascript to place more processing on the client side. It's not without its problems, but then nothing is everything.
This is also a good example of how bad Java and Sun has failed. If Sun would've opened up Java, let people distribute it, as well as from day 1 enabled easy RMI over HTTP we wouldn't be up to our necks in a horrible mixture of presentation logic and business logic.
I agree with this - this was Sun's sweetspot about 10 years ago, wasn't it? Client's connecting to applications so our experience was built upon thin clients instead of desktop applications.
So here we are, requiring gargantuan browser which are brought to a halt with this AJAX technology when we had many other technologies which did so much better but failed for various other reasons.
Again - this is just not true, at least in my experience. If my 800 mhz iBook with OS 10.4 and Safari can run Gmail as fast as Mail.app then I'm sold on the usability of quality engineered AJAX-enabled applications.
Re:AJAX is creative glue (Score:3, Insightful)
With Ajax, you're basically using 100% of what a web browser can do. Ajax is too crappy. html + css + javascript + xmlhttprequest +
Re:AJAX is just an acculmulation of failures (Score:2)
Ummmm.... I have a 1Ghz processor. Most people have 1Ghz processors. If most people couldn't run these GUI's they wouldn't exist because it would be worth the time to futz with them. The fact of the matter is that most people have way more processing power on their desks than they really need. Unless you do lots of video transc
Re:AJAX is just an acculmulation of failures (Score:3, Informative)
1) You had two different browsers each with their own JVM plus a third JVM that you could download and they all behaved slightly inconsistently.
2) The Java applications were painfully slow
Now, go to google maps and tell me that it's slow. It doesn't matter what the software uses, it matters what you perceive. If you perceive waiting, sluggishness, etc, then it's a problem. This is common sense programming. You target a platform and you develop software that works well
Re:AJAX is just an acculmulation of failures (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:AJAX is just an acculmulation of failures (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:AJAX is just an acculmulation of failures (Score:3, Interesting)
Think about what's happening in an AJAX application:
Text defining the display (HTML) is downloaded (HTTP) within which a script is embedded (JavaScript) that requests more data be returned as but in a slightly different form of text (XML) that needs to be unmarshalled and interpreted in an application specific way to extract do
Re:AJAX is just an acculmulation of failures (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm just finishing deployment of a web based app that does some complex data rule enforcement and rating calculation server side, the gui is client side, the server handles logic and stores the application. By designing your apps the correct way, you minimize data transition, data changes up
Re:AJAX is just an acculmulation of failures (Score:5, Insightful)
First of all HTML, JavaScript and XML are not failures. They may not be ideal for whatever it is you think they should be doing, but as technologies they are incredibly successful. Secondly, AJAX requiring a 1 ghz processor is complete bullshit. I use google maps on my 400mhz G4 all the time, and I'll tell you that the operating system slowness itself is more of a source of frustration than javascript.
Oh wait, except if you use a decent toolkit you can write AJAX apps that work in 99.99% of new computers running any operating system, right out of the box. Shit, I guess we better go write some Java Applets or DirectX because AJAX is so horrible.
Okay, that's just outta left field. There's a huge market in between monolithic business applications and pure content documents. Using something like Java to do lightweight web development might satisfy your pedantic idea of proper coding practices, but it wouldn't make anybody more productive. Not to mention assuming that a specific language would somehow make people better software engineers.
Oh boohoo! You didn't perchance work on one of these superior technologies did you?
Well it makes it a good solution if you want to:
Unfortunately it doesn't do anything to:
Re:AJAX is just an acculmulation of failures (Score:3, Interesting)
http://www.w3schools.com/js/default.asp [w3schools.com]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AJAX [wikipedia.org]
Re:AJAX is just an acculmulation of failures (Score:3, Informative)
I've been doing all my recent development in OpenLaszlo [openlaszlo.org] and honestly, I have never seen any UI technology that can compare. And I'm doing more than just playing with it, I'm developing a full blown enterprise app with it at work.
For those who are looking for really impressive web based UI technology, I can't recommend it enough.
Here are some of the strong points:
-ope
So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is nothing new. Calling AJAX "new" is like calling email "new", when it's over 25 years old... AJAX-like techniques being about eight years old.
I'd have written more cool "AJAX" interfaces if only my damn managers knew what in the hell I was talking about back then.
Re:So what? (Score:4, Interesting)
I use it as little as possible, and only when I absoluly have no other choice.
I never tell the managers I use this. They think using replacing nulls with zeros on integer fields is acceptable in a data warehouse environment. Eh, the hackish workaround I've had to implement!!!
In any case, if you really want to go crazy, then build a light xmlrp server in python to act as a bridge, then py2exe it (if you so desire) and run it on the client. Then have a local html+js call it via localhost:someport and it will go out and get the data out on the intarweb. Presto. You've just eliminated the central server. Expose everything as a xmlrpc services, and have only a static web server, with ONE html file. Save to desktop, run, and get the full intarweb, with no cross-domain limit.
And the python bridge can be custmized to do whatever (use Twisted? SOAP, encryption, whatever) and make it generic enough to be completely reuseable.
Beyond Ajax!
Re:So what? (Score:2)
New and IMPROVED eMail! Now with XML Technology! It does everything email did before, but now with XML!
Re:So what? (Score:3, Interesting)
So technically, it's only 7 years old.
(shhh... don't tell taco... his head will explode if he learned that Google didn't invent it)
Time to cash in on the VC bonanza! (Score:2)
Desktop.com (Score:3, Informative)
Still, I haven't seen a good, platform-independant, integrated sever- and client-side solution yet. Back at Desktop in was *all* client side except the actual persistence of objects so it wasn't really an issue.
Ah, well.
Re:Desktop.com (Score:2)
I worked for a startup called "State Software", which offered the "State Application Framework" back in 2000-2002 -- which did just that. Platform independent (on both the server AND client side), and relatively easy to use. It was basically a java back end, with a great browser-independent javascript client library.
Long story short, 2002 was a very bad time to be a startup, and VC funding wasn't quite
Tired of hearing of it (Score:5, Funny)
Buzzword war! (Score:2)
You have a wonderful career in hell ahead of you
Re:Tired of hearing of it (Score:2, Funny)
I must question the truthiness of that statement.
It's gmail... right? (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm watching the flash-based Zimbra demo right now, and they're bragging about innovations like "conversation view" and "tags" on messages. Which gmail has had for a long time. Yes, I know gmail is essentialy AJAX, but this is the demo for the Zimbra collaboration suite.
Why would anyone think Zimbra was innovative based on this demo?
Duh (Score:2)
Well of course, the AJAX buzzword was made up in 2005. Back in 2003, everybody called it remote scripting, DHTML or XMLHttpRequest.
AJAX: Beyond The Hype (Score:5, Insightful)
AJAX is just buzz. Yes, it's a great tool for making better use of the web. Yes, it's relatively simple. Yes, it's flashy.
But it's still just a tool - and it can be used for good (see any of 37signal's apps) or evil (sites that use AJAX for navigation and break the back/forwards buttons). It won't make a badly designed web app better - in fact, incorrectly used, it can make things worse.
The Web 2.0 is about more than just flashy technologies like AJAX: it's about open architectures, semantic code, separation of content, presentation, and now behavior, and better user experiences. AJAX can enable any of those, but it can also destroy any of those. In fact, it's probably made web designers lives harder: now designers need to be familiar with separating not only content from presentation, but behavior from content and presentation as well. That can be very tricky, and it's tempting just to slap on some onclick handlers to your links rather than using the DOM and separating behavior from content. Furthermore, it's very tempting to have AJAX-enabled sites to that don't gracefully degrade in browsers without JavaScript - which defeats the point of the accessible web.
AJAX is a great technique, but it's not a panacea, and it's not a replacement for sound design and UI architecture.
Re:AJAX: Beyond The Hype (Score:2)
Re:AJAX: Beyond The Hype (Score:2)
Dear Web 2.0 (Score:2)
Hi, is there a free patch for my current Web 1.0 to upgrade it to 2.0, and will my Web 1.0 sites continue to work in Web 2.0?
Also, should I wait for the Web 2.1 patch before I make the switch? I usually avoid x.0 releases because I hear they're buggy.
Thanks for the info on Web 2.0.
Signed,
Victim of buzzwords
Re:AJAX: Beyond The Hype (Score:2)
Ajax and Productivity (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Ajax and Productivity (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, none of that other stu
Whoa venture-capital firms? (Score:3, Insightful)
Joking aside, isn't it interesting/sad that it takes a lot of hype backed up by a big name like Google for a old technology tricks to get serious attention from investors? "They are doing it, so it must be good" type of reasoning. Hopefully this bubble won't burst into flames because hype aside, doing what ajax does has been pretty useful and it would be a shame for 'ajax' to be associated with failure.
OMFG! (Score:5, Funny)
Wow, and with the XML you can make it automatically talk to any system!!!!
e-Business has reached a new plateau! Synergy abounds! Am I e-dreaming or what! Woohoo!!
I should be working on an AJAX app right now (Score:5, Interesting)
But I don't get why Google Maps gets the credit for this. Microsoft (yuck!) developed this concept for web based Outlook years ago, and it has been implemented by many smaller developers since then.
Perhaps all this press will get Javascript behaving between browsers and platforms. That is the worst part of AJAX coding!!!
Re:I should be working on an AJAX app right now (Score:3, Interesting)
IP? (Score:4, Insightful)
How will a new platform emerge when its components are owned by multiple licensors? The answer is obvious; Microsoft (or Google, Canopy, etc) will buy them all and own the whole enchilada. Don't count on any Open Source implementations escaping the IP lawyers this time around.
Clean-sweeps the competition (Score:5, Funny)
Content Oriented Markup Elements: Traditional
and
Server Oriented Funneling Transmission
Streaming Concurrent Rational Units Bidirectionally
Re:Clean-sweeps the competition (Score:4, Informative)
Hows about
Decoupled Agile Web Networking
Wow that doesn't make any sense.
Re:Clean-sweeps the competition (Score:2)
Internet Virtual Objects Refreshed remotelY
WELCOME (Score:4, Funny)
Pulling Tiers (Score:2)
Re:Pulling Tiers (Score:3, Insightful)
Please don't.
So far, I haven't seen anyone manage a proper, pixel-perfect page layout or drawing program with AJAX - people seem to pee themselves with excitement [walterzorn.com] when they manage to get Javascript to draw basic lines and circles.
I'd like to see someone implement, say, Google Earth (not Maps) in AJAX, or A
Re:Pulling Tiers (Score:2)
Moreover, what does word processing and spreadsheets have to do with WYSIWYG paint progra
Re:Pulling Tiers (Score:2)
Talk about a delayed reaction (Score:2, Interesting)
I don't get it (Score:2)
If you're just figuring this out now, you haven't been around for long enough.
AJAX has been around (Score:2)
AJAX is Really Cool and All... (Score:2)
Can't we just have Telnet/SSH with HTML formating? (Score:2)
AJAX is nice concept, but such a cludge!
Re:Can't we just have Telnet/SSH with HTML formati (Score:2)
Ajax breaks the web (Score:5, Insightful)
My complaint with Ajax is that it makes scripting the web much more difficult. I write scripts that grab content from the web and do things with it as well as scripts that post content to the web. I was trying to write one of these the other day for a site that used Ajax for the login form. If I still felt like it was worth writing, my script just became ten times more complex.
How do you link to content that is behind or otherwise encrusted with Ajax? How do crawlers find it? Without Ajax, you can look at the source of a page and get a good idea of what it's doing. With Ajax, you basically have to reverse engineer it (for an example, go look at the Gmail code).
The web should continue to stay one URL leads to one document which is a self-contained chunk of plain text containing everything you need to view its contents.
Ajax breaks the transparency and simplicity of the web for no good reason. It offers only increased responsiveness, which unless you are on a modem or something is minimal and mostly imagined by the user.
except that (Score:5, Informative)
i'm being serious here: 99.9999% of web users don't really care if your screen scraper program is harder to write now
you are speaking from an idealistic point of view that doesn't really drive the web
the web is all about, and i mean all about as in the first issue and last issue under consideration, end user experience
everything else is trivial
i'm not in any way joking or trying to be flippant
if web users go "cool, you can drag the google map around, that's so much easier to use than mapquest" then every single thing you just said goes right out the window
end users rule with an iron fist for all development efforts, period, end of story
never forget that
realism trumps idealism
Re:except that (Score:2, Interesting)
There is a time and a place to use AJAX. Some people do not understand. Oh well.
I think you need to read this article to better understand the time and place to use AJAX... http://alexbosworth.backpackit.com/pub/67688 [backpackit.com]
Good Luck!
Re:except that (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Ajax breaks the web (Score:4, Insightful)
you hit the nail on the head here -- one URL, one document. but web applications aren't documents. you could just as easily say that POST breaks bookmarks or something similar.
in fact, most AJAX is used for stuff that shouldn't be crawled or scraped anyway. it would be much better if people published their APIs so you could just fetch the XML and process it directly, if there was a need to accommodate non-browser UAs.
-esme
Re:Ajax breaks the web (Score:3, Insightful)
When you simply need to pull data, AJAX, and more specifically the "X" in it, means that most of the data presented is available in XML form. You'll find that most AJAX scripts still require server side handlers/interfaces written in PHP/ASP/etc. which return "text/xml". It would be very easy f
Re:Ajax breaks the web (Score:3, Interesting)
IMHO best practice should be to keep the static content of these apps (eg. help screens, terms and conditions, privacy policies etc) as regular, indexable HTML whilst using AJAX where the user experie
Re:Ajax breaks the web (Score:3, Insightful)
We control the horizontal, we control the vertical (Score:2)
Okay, that wasn't funny, but this feels like someone just reversed the polarity on the main deflector dish and I got beamed back into the pre-dot bomb days. They've raised a bunch of VC money, they're buzzword compliant, they're going to "change the face" of something...come on.
Though they do seem to have a product, so perhaps I'm being too harsh.
where are the lawyers? (Score:2, Interesting)
Anyway, what I see is that AJAX will allow me to push all of the controller (MVC) logic onto the server. And I can hide script logic as needed (though can be done with jsp's or servlets/JSF). Aside from making remote scripting easier (i.e. don't need to rewrite functions), it will allow me to write code that looks more procedural and manageable than straight HTML. So it's another tool to add to the arsenal--hence the article sounds like mo
Bubble 2.0? (Score:2)
caveat emptor (Score:2)
1. ajax the functionality has been around for 6 years or more
2. the buzzword "ajax" and the google maps implementation that skyrocketed the word to buzzword status has only been around for less than a year
i'm usually not one to champion geek snobbery. but when geek snobbery is pitted against cattle herds of phbs spouting buzzwords with little understanding of the buzzword itself, geek snobbery is more appealing
folks: use ajax, it really is The Next Big T
What's wrong with you guys?? (Score:5, Insightful)
The same people lamenting about this 'undeserved' hype are the first ones complaining that we're all being outsourced and that it's almost impossible to raise funding for an IT startup these days. So, here's a company that somehow coaxed a VC out of $16 Million (which in turn will create jobs for people like YOU!) and you're bitching and moaning acrimoniously about how you guys did that 4 years ago. If you are really sooooo smart, then go out there and grab a piece of the action! VCs are sitting on huge portfolio funds right now and have no clue what to do with them (well, almost
Java-phants hatin' on AJAX (Score:2)
However, unlike Java, AJAX has immediate and obvious value to net-based applications. Java never had a niche where it could show off what it was uniquely good at. So unlike the Java hype, AJAX really does something bette
Story title correction (Score:2)
"Ajax Is the Buzzword of Silicon Valley."
Thanks.
AJAX Special Hazard Precautions (Score:3, Funny)
AJAX Special Hazard Precautions [donhopkins.com]
Anyone who tries to tell you that AJAX is a " new approach to web applications [adaptivepath.com]" is just rebranding old technology and hyping buzzwords, not engineering software in the real world. Because of browser and DHTML incompatibilities and limitiations, AJAX is like cocaine: it seems glamorous until you actually start using it, then the unintended consequences totally fuck you up.
Special Hazard Precautions for AJAX:
INGESTION: NAUSEA, VOMITING, AND DIARRHEA. EYES: EYE IRRITA
Re:Gong! - Mod Parent Up (Score:2)
I read the article first thing this morning in the WSJ (Yes, I actually pay for it) and realized it was a fluff piece.
But, what you don't understand, is that, for WSJ to put AJAX on the front-page (this wasn't hidden back in the tech-section), sas alot for what is going on.
-----
The real story here is as follows:
Okay, OKay, It's OKay to Use JavaScript