Trying To Bust JavaScript Out of the Browser 531
eldavojohn writes "If you think JavaScript is a crime against humanity, you might want to skip this article, because Ars is reporting on efforts to take JavaScript to the next level. With the new ECMAScript 5 draft proposal, the article points out a lot of positive things that have happened in the world of JavaScript. The article does a good job of citing some of the major problems with JavaScript and how a reborn library called CommonJS (formerly ServerJS) is addressing each of those problems. No one can deny JavaScript's usefulness on the front end of the web, but if you're a developer do you support the efforts to move it beyond that?"
Javascript is actually a great language (Score:5, Interesting)
Dynamically typed, object-oriented, with features like lexical closures that are usually only found in advanced programming languages like Lisp, Javascript is really a great language that has gotten a bad rap.
It reminds me of the lowly tomato, a member of the poisonous nightshade family of plants, which for years was considered to be inedible. These days you can't get a salad without it. Things change when you realize how useful something actually is.
Re:Javascript is actually a great language (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps it's a great language, but it reduced modern Core i7 computers to performance of a 486, negating 15 years of computing revolution. Inability to perform CPU-intensive computations due to these dynamic types of yours, lack of threading or any other explicit or implicit parallelism support, no library facilities to modern 2D/3D graphics libraries. Javascript is a nice experimental language like so many others but it shouldn't be running 90% of mission-critical applications.
Re: (Score:2)
Javascript is a nice experimental language like so many others but it shouldn't be running 90% of mission-critical applications.
But alas, it's driving a majority of the web.
Re:Javascript is actually a great language (Score:5, Interesting)
- The speed issue is largely due to the crappy implementations of Javascript, which are improving due to competition among browsers. Javascript can be JIT-ed. What you probably can't do is compile it to native code and expect it to have the speed of C/C++. But then would *you* run arbitrary native binary code off the web? Sandboxing makes things slow again.
- I'll give you the lack of threading.
- 2D/3D libraries - C doesn't have one in its standard, C++ doesn't have one, in fact most don't. But you're free to implement one. It just doesn't make too much sense having a full fledged 2D/3D library in the browser, since that's where most javascript code are used in.
- experimental language, as in first appearing in 1995, used extensively for almost 15 years. Of course most people never really utilize its full power, but it's not the fault of the language
- And you use a "mission-critical application" written in Javascript running inside a web browser?
Don't ditch the language due to poor implementation and crappy users.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Perhaps it's a great language, but it reduced modern Core i7 computers to performance of a 486, negating 15 years of computing revolution.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Some sort of interpreted language was needed for the web, to run untrusted code in a secure way. C couldn't be used for that.
Well, that sure hasn't worked out as planned. There is more malware written in Javascript than in any other language in existence. The only connection between language and security is performance of things like bounds checking, and Javascript is not exactly known for performance. C can easily be interpreted or compiled to verifiable code and still be faster than JS for CPU-intensive inner loops written without complicated pointer use. JVM is specially designed to allow more load-time verification rather tha
Re:Javascript is actually a great language (Score:4, Interesting)
Your comment is a decade out of date. No modern Javascript engine operates the way you describe. They cache object properties such that property access is fast, and independent of property name length.
Your 3D code is slow for other reasons. As a hunch, I bet you're doing a lot of unnecessary string-to-Number conversion.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Or maybe more like Oxygen, poisonous in high concentrations (re: pressures).
Re: (Score:2)
It reminds me of the lowly tomato, a member of the poisonous nightshade family of plants, which for years was considered to be inedible. These days you can't get a salad without it.
Javascript reminds you of tomatoes? My favorite salad [google.com] seldom seems to have tomatoes. I see how you got your nick name ;-)
Re:Javascript is actually a great language (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd instead say that Javascript is a frustrating language that's gotten too much rep. The fact that people migrate towards 3'rd party libraries to standardize simple programming operations (like jQuery / GWT) is a testament to how bad it's legacy has gotten - when trying to do 'real' work.
Sure a command-line javascript can define it's own standard and I'm confident that it can solve all these problems.. That's the great thing about standards - everybody's got one.
Re:Javascript is actually a great language (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd instead say that Javascript is a frustrating language that's gotten too much rep. The fact that people migrate towards 3'rd party libraries to standardize simple programming operations (like jQuery / GWT) is a testament to how bad it's legacy has gotten - when trying to do 'real' work.
jQuery (prototype, mootools, etc) solves shitty DOM implementations, not shitty Javascript implementations. In fact, I don't think jQuery addresses a single "lack" in Javascript-- I could be mistaken-- virtually everything, if not everything, it does is fixing DOM's bad design and browser's inconsistent implementation of it.
This is why Javascript gets a bad rap: pair it with DOM, and *any* language would look awful, because DOM is awful.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
so when is dom2 coming out?
Re:Javascript is actually a great language (Score:4, Interesting)
Most of Javascript's bad reputation come from the W3C's DOM. When the majority of programmers think "Javascript," they're actually thinking "Javascript + DOM," and since the DOM is so awful, they think Javascript is awful as well. Not so.
Pair Javascript with a decent library, and it's extremely powerful. Maybe not as suited for large projects as languages with namespaces, but its template system and introspection features are simply amazing. If anybody ever writes a program that evolves itself until it becomes super-intelligent and takes over the Earth, it'll probably be written in Javascript.
Correction to the parent, though: Javascript isn't an object-oriented language in the classic definition of the term... it lacks many features to make it truly OOP. Instead, it's based around object templating, which is nearly as powerful, but not the same thing.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
will alert 2.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Small projects turn into huge projects. You use a cheesy tool for a job, it works, and then someone wants a feature, so you add it and feel a little uncomfortable about it. A few weeks later, it happens again. After a few years, all the little discomforts add up to a giant pain in the ass.
Look at how all these little languages (e.g. PHP) have evolved and tried to grow up, to varying degrees of success. Do you know why they did that? Because someone had legacy code investm
Re:Javascript is actually a great language (Score:5, Interesting)
Javascript makes many hard things simple, and many simple things hard.
Need to find out what the user typed in box foo? While most client libraries require fairly detailed memory schemes in order to keep track of which box is which, Javascript reduces all that to getElementById(); - a win in any programmer's book!
But in the reverse, what about trimming that input? The offense to the mind that you have to use a USER DEFINED FUNCTION for trimming just boggles the mind. Sure, there are libraries for this, blah blah but still, the truth remains that there is no trim() function. The lack of any kind of meaningful class structure makes the special word "this" almost worthless because you can't be sure consistently what it's referring to. (yes, it is possible to figure it out, but why should you have to?) If you delete an array key directly with the delete command, eg: `delete myArray[4];` the length property doesn't get updated even though the number of elements in the array does. (WTF?!?!)
So javascript has its warts. Lots and lots of them. It is clearly a hacked-together language that is only successful because of its ubiquity, which is the same reason why it evolves so extremely slowly, which is why we still have to manually implement things like trim(), and why so many of us are doomed to deal with javascript with all of its warts.
Javascript, however, has been free of the browser for some time, due to the Mozilla's JS engine being modular. They call it spidermonkey, and I actually considered using it as a replacement for PHP on the server side in order to keep langauages consistent. Unfortunately, nobody's embedded it into Apache as a module (with any kind of stability) so this means that js scripts would have to run as separate executables, which causes all kinds of performance and security problems.
Re: (Score:2)
and I actually considered using it as a replacement for PHP on the server side in order to keep langauages consistent.
I always thought that would be a good thing - consistency in language means you don't have to learn 5 or so to do meaningful work. Unfortunately, whilst MS appears to agree with me (everything in C#), the rest of the world doesn't. So until we get a javascript world takeover, we'll be stuck with PHP, Perl, Python and Java server-side systems. I'd love for one to win, and JS may as well be th
Re: (Score:2)
Bad idea. The fact that you have to use different languages separates domains as they should be.
Django does something similar by using a templating language that is not Python and runs in a different context.
I feel that if you start putting JS on both client and server you'll start to blur the line between client and server and make the code much harder to read. You'll start using some of the same routines in both client and server. With separate languages you make sure that those types of things are onl
Re: (Score:2)
Need to find out what the user typed in box foo? While most client libraries require fairly detailed memory schemes in order to keep track of which box is which, Javascript reduces all that to getElementById(); - a win in any programmer's book!
That's DOM, not Javascript.
But in the reverse, what about trimming that input? The offense to the mind that you have to use a USER DEFINED FUNCTION for trimming just boggles the mind.
That's a lack in DOM, not a lack in Javascript.
So javascript has its warts. Lots and
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The absence of a trim method is not a DOM problem: I should be a method available on String.
As for the lack of this consistency, this is due how Javascript scopes references to methods. Being able to change this behaviour can be handy at times, but often not the expected behaviour.
Read http://www.alistapart.com/articles/getoutbindingsituations/ [alistapart.com] to see how apply/call can help set-up the correct binding for this and a method.
JavaScript behaves this way to support prototypal inheritance.
Re:Javascript is actually a great language (Score:4, Informative)
If you delete an array key directly with the delete command, eg: `delete myArray[4];` the length property doesn't get updated even though the number of elements in the array does. (WTF?!?!)
That one I can't speak to... interesting if true.
Yes, delete will mull the value of an array element but leave the index. To remove an array element, use splice(), which removes AND returns the indexed element in question:
js> arr = [4,5,6,7];
4,5,6,7
js> print(arr.splice(2));
6
js> print(arr);
4,5,7
js> delete arr[1];
true
js> print(arr);
4,,7
Re:Javascript is actually a great language (Score:4, Insightful)
JavaScript is a Self dialect with ugly syntax, a broken model for unboxed numeric values, monumentally broken semantics for closure evaluation, and no sensible second-chance dispatch mechanism. Oh, and all current JavaScript implementations are slower than the Self VM from a decade ago.
Apart from that, it's a great language.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not even remotely true. When I'm driving a car load of drunken cheerleaders to the abortion clinic, and I stop off at McDonalds, I enjoy an unequivocal Constitutional right to shoot the McMonkey in the balls if he puts tomato in my salad after I've told him not to.
Re: (Score:2)
I for one wish JS have the same broad success as Lisp!
Re:Javascript is actually a great language (Score:4, Interesting)
Javascript is too dynamically typed. In my experience, testers constantly find bugs caused by type-mismatches, misspelled variable names, or other basic things that a compiler could have detected. The next most common set of problems is that Javascript generally doesn't report errors right away: they show up 200 lines later. Suppose a variable doesn't exist when it is referenced? It just makes one up right there on the spot, and assigns it a null value. That's terrible. Then there's the null -vs- undefined mess that constantly trips-up even experienced programmers.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
All strings coerce to boolean true in JS, as they do in C (with the exception of the empty string):
char* a = "false";
if (a) {
printf("a is true?\n");
}
In fact, most values coerce to true except integer zero, NaN, undefined, null and empty string.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously, that isn't what the web is anymore, deal with it. Nothing at all to do with javascript.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
So, what was your point? That you can use the var keyword twice in a scope block?
The point is that variables are scoped to functions, not to blocks like in all other C-style family languages (and all other languages which permit variable declarations within blocks; the only other exception I'm aware of is VB6).
What's worse is that the second "var" looks like a variable redeclaration, but ends up being a simple assignment.
Compare with C++:
JavaScript broke out a long time ago (Score:2)
JavaScript is already out of the browser, but unofficially or rather unstandardized. Look at languages such as JavaScript in Flash, or the use of JavaScript in Acrobat PDF Reader, etc. Microsoft allowed their JScript (variant of JavaScript) to be used on the server side years ago in classic Active Server Pages - so I coded JavaScript on the server several years back.
However I am in support of a more official representation of JavaScript on the server.
Re: (Score:2)
> However I am in support of a more official representation of JavaScript on the server.
I suspect that part of the thrust here is migration of server CPU cycles to client CPU cycles. Server CPU cycles are typically planned, purchased, tracked, and constrained. Client CPU cycles are typically wasted. The "cheap box" today at the local big box retailer has more CPU power than a scientific mainframe of not that long ago. Most of that compute power is spent waiting for the user to press a key or move the
Re: (Score:2)
Look at languages such as JavaScript in Flash [..]
I wouldn't say JavaScript = Actionscript; they're both descendants of ECMAScript [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Look at languages such as JavaScript in Flash,
Flash doesn't use Javascript, it uses Actionscript. Both are based on the ECMAScript standard, but Actionscript 3 is actually pretty far-removed from Javascript now. (Actionscript 2 is much closer.)
Anyway, I get what you're saying, it's just that Adobe's version is modified quite a bit.
My thoughts (Score:4, Funny)
Re:My thoughts (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:My thoughts (Score:4, Insightful)
Too educated to learn.
Re: (Score:2)
Beyond What? (Score:2)
No one can deny JavaScript's usefulness on the front end of the web, but if you're a developer do you support the efforts to move it beyond that?"
If I've got Javascript on the front end, and say Java working the back end... How much more Java can I get? I'm a developer and I can't think of anything MORE front then the front end...
If you're talking about Taking Javascript and making it more integrated with the actual web page display, AJAX already handles most of that. We don't need Javascript to become like PHP, where you're using PHP to write your HTML inside of your PHP script tag inside of an HTML body.
Re: (Score:2)
If I've got Javascript on the front end, and say Java working the back end... How much more Java can I get? I'm a developer and I can't think of anything MORE front then the front end...
If you're talking about Taking Javascript and making it more integrated with the actual web page display, AJAX already handles most of that. We don't need Javascript to become like PHP, where you're using PHP to write your HTML inside of your PHP script tag inside of an HTML body.
1) JavaScript is not Java,despite the name.
2) You can get lots more Java if that's what you want.
3) Are you a developer, or a guy who makes web apps?
4) The OS desktop is MORE front than the front end of your web app running inside a browser.
5) PHP (and JSP among others) doesn't have to be written like that.
Difference? (Score:2)
3) Are you a developer, or a guy who makes web apps?
Wait, since when is there a difference? I consider myself a developer, but my applications are only available on the web..
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, since when is there a difference? I consider myself a developer, but my applications are only available on the web..
The difference is really understanding the technologies you're using, the context you're using them in, and effective ways to use them. I didn't get the impression that the OP necessarily had that understanding.
Re: (Score:2)
1) There are enough similarities between the two to associate them together. Obviously one is a script and the other is not, so Java needs to be compiled and you have to watch your syntax more in Javascript. But the way I declare and use my variables is most similar to the way I would handle them in Java as opposed to VB.
2) Yes I've written a GUI in Java, wrote the back end in Java, etc etc, and no, thats not what I want. It's not fun.
3) I actually only maintain web apps on occaison, most of my hobbying is
Clueless (Score:2)
If I've got Javascript on the front end, and say Java working the back end... How much more Java can I get?
Repeat after me: Javascript is not Java. Don't confuse the two, they are completely different technologies.
Re: (Score:2)
I know that, everyone knows that. One is a scripting language where the other one needs to be compiled before running and blah blah blah yes we know. But there are obviously more similarities between Java and Javascript then say Javascript and C#.
Re: (Score:2)
But there are obviously more similarities between Java and Javascript then say Javascript and C#.
List some of them.
Damn straight! (Score:2)
I say bring it on.
JavaScript should stay in its niche (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
C or objective C (for the Linux and Mac developers respectively)
Some of us use Objective-C on Linux (or, in my case, FreeBSD) too. It even works on Windows...
Getting JS out of the browser is a *great* idea. (Score:5, Interesting)
Javascript is a beautiful, elegant, small and generally well-formed language. It has a couple of warts, but what language doesn't.
However, the way that Javascript interacts with web browsers, web pages and all other things web-like is a disgusting, crufty, bloated piece of shit. The DOM bindings are horrible, as far as they go, and they're woefully incomplete. The browser deficiencies in their implementations of the DOM bindings, and the browser-specific work-arounds needed to circumvent said deficiencies, are Lovecraftian nightmares.
(The willful violation of the javascript object model for document.all in HTML5 [w3.org] (see bottom of page) is one particularly nasty example of what the web has done/is doing to Javascript. If you know the JS object model well, think about what that violation really entails, and what it would take to write that special case into a JS engine, for one particular property, of one particular object, if you happen to be running in a particular environment (browser))
Getting Javascript out of the browser would be the best thing that could possibly happen to Javascript.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The idea of Javascript is nice. In practice it's hardly what you describe.
Consider how closures work in Javascript. It's totally retarded and the scoping doesn't work like you think it would.
Lua [lua.org] has basically the same semantics as Javascript but it much simpler, faster, and you get a better design (eg. closures work like they should). Lua is a better Javascript than Javascript.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
>> The willful violation of the javascript object model for document.all in HTML5 (see bottom of page) is one particularly nasty example...
Not really nasty to implement at all:
get document all() {
return document.getElementById.apply(document, arguments);
}
That's interpreted code, of course, not native code. But if you're in the business of writing parsers and compilers, rolling that into native code is about a 10-minute operation.
Now... I might agree with you that it's misleading to newb
Better Idea (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You mean like this [coboloncogs.org]?
Javascript... (Score:2)
A huge pain (Score:4, Insightful)
A lot of the pain of JS, like its inconsistent experience across browsers, can't really be held against it. Each browser has to implement JS according to its own interpretation of the standard, virtually guaranteeing a non-consistent experience across the board. I understand that. But what truly kills JavaScript for me is the lack of development tools and a solid reference. Debugging JS with an alert window is a horrible experience.
Again, why anyone would want this stuff everywhere is beyond me. I was shocked a long time ago when Palm Pre decided it was a good idea to use JavaScript for app development. Shocked I tell you. And look where that went. Like I said, the only reason I would consider JS "popular" on the web is because there is no other way to do client-side processing. It's literally our only choice (VBScript doesn't count).
Re: (Score:2)
I think the problems you've described are (among other things) what the article proposes to fix.
Script Engine out of the Browser? (Score:2)
Sure a JavaScript engine may have shipped on "every computer ever" but it's been embedded into a browser. So the next step is to decouple it from that browser-based engine and use it to create local apps?
What would you run this script engine in? A Virtual Machine? Some kind of embedded OS Framework? A behind-the-scenes browser instance (shudder).
Either way, I don't get it, what magical app could I write only with JavaScript that I couldn't write with something else? Actually I do kind of get it, there are p
Can your language do this (Score:4, Interesting)
A lot of the comments are pointing out the problems in Javascript, and ignoring the problems in the big heavyweight languages like Java and C#.
It's not really in praise of Javascript, but a very good read is Joel's article 'Can Your Programming Language Do This?' It accurately points out a number of ways in which Java development very quickly takes up a lot of lines of code compared to more lightweight approaches. I personally prefer the light weight approach for many applications.
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2006/08/01.html [joelonsoftware.com]
Crimes against humanity (Score:2)
I don't think it's fair to call JavaScript a crime against humanity -- most humans aren't software developers...
Re: (Score:2)
Most humans do have to wait on javascript to load. And they have to deal with its popups.
It has potential... (Score:2)
I would say that JavaScript has potential, just like Luke Skywalker. Both had the ability to do great things and both had/have the ability to do terrible things.
Question is... who is.. Who's JavaScript's father? And will he lead him down the dark side?
Works for what it's supposed to do (Score:4, Insightful)
It's a tolerable front end language for browsers. It's not as flexible or as fast as C++, but here's a newsflash to the "I'm living in Mom's basement crowd." It doesn't have to be.
It can suck up resources and not be especially fast and not be able to manipulate pointers or be much good for creating new classes and....
(sing it with me now) IT DOESN'T MATTER AND 99.99% OF WEB DEVELOPERS DON'T CARE.
Not all languages are C++, or Ruby, or Java or anything. Nor should they be. Use the right tool for the right job.
Javascript: The Good Parts (Score:4, Informative)
This is the book that'll make you realise Javascript is OK:
http://oreilly.com/catalog/9780596517748 [oreilly.com]
It's not afraid to call out the bad parts, and to show you how to work around them. That's down to a rushed standardization process.
It doesn't deal with the DOM at all - after all, that's not part of JS.
It leaves you thinking JS is pretty neat, if you use it right.
Cross Compatibility (Score:2)
wrong way of thinking about the issue (Score:2)
the browser is the os. or rather, the browser will become the os. anything and everything of any value to 99% of us in the modern internet-centered world will be interacted with through the browser
so instead of talking about jailbreaking javascript, the more relevant subject should be jailbreaking the browser. such that when joe user turns on his computer in 2015, he gets a browser, and only a browser, and nothing but a browser. native javascript implementation then continues merrily chugging along in the b
Your bias shows: You can't program shit! (Score:4, Interesting)
If you think JavaScript is a crime against humanity,
In other words “If you can’t program, or if you can’t tell JavaScript from Java or Python,”.
The new versions of JS are really sweet. But most “web-developers” can’t even write proper code in the old one. Which is quickly visible, if you enable strict warnings, and force the interpreter to the newest version. Most scripts throw warnings or fail after that.
I say JS and Python are on par with each other. But they use very different paradigms. JS uses prototypes. And that is what most people do not understand. See it like this: Everything is an object (including functions, which allows really powerful functional programming), everything can be written literally (including objects with functions), and everything has a prototype on which it is based and can be the prototype for other objects/prototypes.
So you build your object, and then use it as a prototype to create other objects with added functionality or changed data.
The elegance of this is, that inheriting and instantiation really becomes the same thing. And in my eyes, the less rules a language needs, while still having all the power, the better and more elegant it is.
It’s crazy how, with the newest version, I can write it nearly 1:1 like I would write it in Haskell! You can’t imagine how happy I was, when I noticed that I would practically a “scriptable Haskell in the browser”. Of course it does not have the type strictness of Haskell. But that is kinda the point.
It even has regular expression literals.
What’s a bit messy, is DOM. Perhaps because it’s a “design by committee with no own sense of reality” (= no leadership) API.
Then again, I’m all for more languages in the browser. Python, Ruby, Lua, Erlang, Haskell and Java are good candidates. C/C++ and Perl are not. (Perhaps Perl 6 in 2051. ^^)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I like Python better than JS for a lot of reasons, that it doesn't deal with undefined vs null vs NaN vs Infinity is a big one. That property access is throughly customizable, as well as item access and function calling customizations. And class definitions inside a class block are more clean and elegant than multiple Class.prototype assigments, the standard way of prototype customization in JS.
BUT, I admit JS has many nice tricks, Object notation makes returning records really easy to create and to use, a
Most of you don't know what you are talking about (Score:4, Interesting)
RIAs that work well on IE and FireFox (the predominant browsers used in commercial sectors) are being developed today in JavaScript with jquery, gwt or dojo. And crappy client-side applications are being written as well. But anyone with a modicum of work experience knows that the responsibility of writing shitty applications rest squarely on the developer.
Some of the crappiest, worst code I've seen had been written on Java, C# and C++. And also, some of the clearest, most maintainable and elegant pieces of code I've seen were written in FoxPro and JavaScript. Every single language sucks in one aspect or another.
A good software professional, a pragmatic one, he looks at the language, at the tool, works around the problems and gets the stuff done with it in a clean manner.
Shitty programmer OTOH will screw it up no matter what.
And coding divas will get all emotionally attached to a given language, throwing subjective infantile rants towards whatever language they don't like recalling anecdotal memories mixed with technical impressions too superficial to be called "first-hand educated knowledge".
I don't like JS global scoping and lack of namespaces, but I do love it's object prototyping capabilities and support for functional programming. You can write some really complex client-side, browser-running systems with a brevity and clarity you cannot match with Java or C#.
That is the reality. It is a perfect tool? Nope. It is a good tool for what it is intended to? Yes. You can't get emotional against a tool, specially if you have never been able (or are incapable or have never assigned) to create a good NON-TRIVIAL application with it.
Re: (Score:2)
I actually wish JavaScript and other client-side browser scripting would be done away with completely, but JS is not a particularly 'good' language. The only advantage I can see is that thousands of Web developers can now write desktop applications. Is that necessarily a good thing? or will it just lead to more inefficient crapware?
I'm guessing there will be a few really good, well-written apps and all of the rest will either be blocked with NoScript or special tools/addons will be created for the sole purpose of selectively blocking (or whitelisting) them.
Re:Why bother? (Score:5, Informative)
Yes lets put all the work on the server. The server should handle all formatting and every single error check and lets wait for the server to respond and reload the entire page to say something is wrong. Lets not have the ability to hide or move objects, because we need to reload the page over and over and over again... Never mind CPUs are Really fast and the standard Desktop has ton of memory. Lets fill up the slower bandwidth with reloading the same information over again.
Sorry your post is screaming, I am not comfortable with JavaScript and it is effecting my 7337 status. So I will insult it so I can seem like I am skilled programmer.
Re:Why bother? (Score:4, Insightful)
Mod parent up. Javascript, or ECMAscript gets a bad rap because a lot of code-pounders don't really know how to use it beyond defining a few c-style functions. It's a fairly powerful language once you understand the grammar. IE6 shoulders most of the blame for fucking it up - things that should work but need a bunch of ridiculous if(ie) incantations chase away most programmers from understanding the fundamentals of the language better. Once you realize that it's *even more* object oriented than Java(sun) then you begin to understand.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
No, for that you need Python,
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I know, the commas in my sentences make no sense at all.
I just type them automatically, without thinking about it. It's a bad habit which is hard to lose.
Anyway, thanks for reminding me.
Re:Why bother? (Score:5, Funny)
That's unfortunate... though perhaps now you could join the ranks of those with 1337 status?
OTOH, maybe you were referring to TEAT [wikipedia.org] status, in which case... your ideas intrigue me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The javascript hate probably isn't coming from people that have done web development.
It's probably coming from people that have done web browsing.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How do you hide or move a DOM object in real time with css? For example how do you do this with css (jquery example)
$("p").click(function () { $("p").fadeOut("slow"); });
I'm not a javascript fan, but I have to use it daily for the tasks given to me.
Congratulations, you've just loaded 50-300kb of javascript (depending on your jQuery version) to fade out an element.
The "fading slowly" part is the ONLY bit that can't be accomplished with CSS. Hiding and moving is trivial, even cross-browser. Trust me.
I'm the lead programmer for a Fortune 300 site, and we're handed third-party content forced onto us by Marketing, et al, that uses Jquery, et al, to accomplish the SIMPLEST of tasks. I have yet to see something implemented in jQuery that would require mor
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
jQuery is NOT for programmers, it's for tools who think they're coding when they lay out HTML.
So what? Who cares about 50 kilobytes of extra data coming down the wire? Probably the logo graphic of your Fortune 300 company uses more bytes.
If your only diffenrentiation from "amateurs" working with jQuery is that you can spare a 50kb download then probably your skillset is not adequate for today's world, dude!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
(jquery example)
$("p").click(function () { $("p").fadeOut("slow"); });
I wondered that myself when attempting to put dynamic effects in a myspace page. They strip out any script you put in, but they leave css alone. This is what I used:
< style >
.leftthumbnail span{
position: absolute;
top: 0px;
left: -1000px;
visibility: hidden;
text-decoration: none;
}
.leftthumbnail span img{
border-width: 0;
padding
Re:Why bother? (Score:5, Insightful)
I actually wish JavaScript and other client-side browser scripting would be done away with completely,
Why?
JS is not a particularly 'good' language.
People who say this very often don't know Javascript well at all. It's Lisp in C's clothing. It's actually a surprisingly elegant language -- it has a few warts, but they are almost certainly not what you're thinking of.
Google Douglas Crockford.
Re:Why bother? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"One of the few popular languages with first-class functions"? Allow me to disagree but almost every dynamic language I know of has first-class functions.
Other languages, like C, C++, C#, also allow you to use functions as a data type.
I agree that, in some of them, their syntax does not make it easy to define functions as, for example, an argument, but you can define the function first, and pass it as an argument later if needed.
Closures are another thing altogether, but they are supported on many dynamic l
Re:Why bother? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's a poor Lisp in C's clothing. Give me LET already!
Re:Why bother? (Score:4, Informative)
I know exactly what a let form is. The code was not scoped so it was already on global level, declaring variables local in global scope doesn't do much. This did on global level exactly what let would in a procedural language. That is define the value for all following statements (for functional languages, all embedded statements). If you need let-embedding add a lamba expression (called function() in js), and you get nice scoped variables.
Sure.. but given JS expressive power, I dare you.. Especially compared to LISP.
If you ask for threading though, I yield ;)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why bother? (Score:5, Insightful)
I tend to go by the thickness of Crockford's book, vs the thickness of any "Complete Javascript" book when determining how much "good stuff" the language has.
I believe there are two reasons for this:
1. Crockford's writing is concise and to the point. It assumes prior programming knowledge.
2. Crockford's book does not concern itself with the DOM
So I believe a good chunk of the extra stuff in the fatter books is "here's what a loop is", "here's what if() does", and a bigger chunk yet is about HTML and CSS.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're right, I was making a rhetorical point, not a logical one.
The main thing I dislike about Javascript is that it's not a designed language. What I mean by this is that the most basic way of doing things should be the correct way. By this metric, Javascript fails miserably. There's so much broken - scope, the this keyword, scope for eval'd code, the hoops you have to jump through to make "private" functions and variables, etc. I also have a strong bias against untyped languages and those whose synta
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You mean the Douglas Crockford that wrote http://www.crockford.com/javascript/private.html [crockford.com]?
When I talk about an object oriented programming language I'm referring to a language that allows you to use the concepts of OOP in a *natural* and *homogeneous* way. I don't want to write a library and helper methods to write an OO program, I want to use the language.
It's OK if it doesn't has classes, and therefore inheritance does not have a place in Javascript, just stop trying to force it to be something that it w
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
> most implementations of JS have threads, its just that its transparent to the language.
Really? Name two.
To the OP: Threads are not the only solution to concurrency. JS works will event loops.
Re:c++ is good (Score:5, Insightful)
it's just sometimes, it's a resource hog.
A bad workman always blames his tools
When you are given a screw driver to drive a nail, blaming the tool makes sense!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
it's just sometimes, it's a resource hog.
A bad workman always blames his tools
The logical fallacy in this cliche has always irritated me.
- If all bad workmen blame their tools, does it follow that all workmen that blame their tools are bad ones?
- If all dogs are animals with four legs*, does it follow that all animals with four legs are dogs?
* Excluding accidents and birth defects
Re:c++ is good (Score:5, Informative)
The logical fallacy is only because the quote has gotten distorted severely over the years. The original saying, translated to English from Old French, reads "Bad workers will never find a good tool." This version makes much more sense.
Source: http://www.answers.com/topic/a-bad-workman-blames-his-tools [answers.com].
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
so until and unless major browsers start implementing things like JIT compilation
Wish granted [google.com] (at least for chrome).
Re:javascript is good (Score:5, Insightful)
Written in C you could write an app to draw and compute the motion of tens of thousands of fucking balls at 60 fps on a modern computer.
Within 2 orders of magnitude is not "close" to C performance. Within 2 orders of magnitude is not "acceptable" performance.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
... you cannot say something like
when an app is written in JS it is more likely to be a resource hog than the same app written in compiled C
Actually, that's a perfectly reasonable thing to say, albeit pointless because of the obviousness of it. It doesn't matter what runtime implementation you use, Javascript will always use more resources than an equivalent C program can, if only because of the overhead of the unused but still loaded runtime features. That doesn't mean Javascript is necessarily a resource hog, but the statement your quoted is not very outrageous, especially since he qualified the statement with "more likely."
Re: (Score:3)
JIT compilation may be overkill, when a large portion of scripts are often nothing more than three lines of code, doing a task like incre
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
As is usual, when comparing languages (or most anything else), saying one is better than another might be too vague... you should include WHAT they're better at. Interactive debugging is often better in interpreted languages, for instance.