Slashdot Mirror
Mozilla Extending Javascript?
Nomad128 writes "Mozilla's Deer Park 1 Alpha RC appears to have extended the Javascript spec for the first time in quite some time. New features include Array object methods "every" (logical AND), "some" (logical OR), "map" (function mapping), and "forEach" (iteration). They also appear to have added native XML support. Will this speed up the development of AJAX applications and give Moz a leg-up over IE7?"
I don't think the Javascript extensions will be used very much. Personally, I'm coding Javascript that will work in most browsers, which means I have to specifically exclude this new Javascript unless IE et al also implement it (and even then, older browsers still won't like it). Not to be anti-Mozilla, but this does sound a bit like embrace and extend to me. (Yes, I know it's open source and others can read the specs.)
On the other hand, it looks like the things that they did add were mostly based on standards and the DOM spec, so we'll see where this goes.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
Ok I understand there are several benefits to this for extension writers. However, I seriously doubt that it will be used in many other places. After all who wants to write web pages that won't work properly in IE and Safari?
Philosophy.
... and not something that the Mozilla guys could futz around with on a whim.
Mind you, we are talking about the people who brought you the BLINK tag.
Coming soon - pyrogyra
Great.
So, people used to get pissed off about Microsoft playing around with scripting features in IE that weren't available on other platforms, but now it's going to be an *advantage* for Mozilla?
Hello-o-oo-oooo-o-ooooo...
- Rory [Microsoft Employee] | Free dirt: neopoleon.com
I view these developments as steps on the road of Mozilla 2.0 It makes sense that a new major version of the open source browser includes innovations just like what Netscape did for their Navigator.
Many of the new Array methods are similar to methods I've written myself and used for years. Admittedly the methods themselves aren't part of the ECMA spec, but object extension via prototyping is a core feature of the language. It shouldn't be difficult to implement them on your own for other browsers.
They'll just run a bit faster in Mozilla/FireFox, is all, since they'll be run as part of the interpreter rather than as interpreted code.
Most of the other stuff is based on W3C standards.
Short version: I'll continue to do cool stuff quickly in Moz and spend time writing workarounds for MSIE, just like I've been doing for the last 4-5 years. Nothing particularly new about that.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Most, if not all, Mozilla extensions use Javascript, so that's most likely what these changes are aimed at. I don't think you're supposed to use them on public webpages; if the Mozilla guys really care, then they'll also make sure that these extensions won't work in that case.
Funny... that exact same argument didn't work for Microsoft with their extensions to Java... why should we let Mozilla get away with it?
Coming soon - pyrogyra
World Peace would be nice too.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Great more exstentions, more media I want to block, ugh...
I don't think you have any idea what you're talking about. These extensions to JavaScript will make the language easier to program in, which will be nice for the parts of Mozilla that are written in JavaScript (quite a bit, actually) and for things like Firefox extensions. It doesn't sound like they'll provide any undesirable functionality - we're not talking about floating popup windows here.
Why can't anyone write something to block all of this stuff out, I don't want to see graphics, or animations, or hear sounds,
That's precisely what several Firefox extensions do, and these additions to JavaScript will make extensions like that easier to write and maintain (and probably faster to use and smaller to download).
I love Opera, and it is my browser of choice but I still have to deal with unwanted flash animations.
Well, maybe you should switch to Firefox with the FlashBlock extension. Or if you really never want to see Flash animations, you could always uninstall the Flash plugin...
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Mozilla Extending Javascript = yes (read the posting)
Are web designers going to use it = no since they like "write once, run everywhere"
Will extension developers use it = yes
Will anybody remember the person responsible for Javascript in the first place?
Well, see for yourself, a document that he maintains Roadmap
Uh, wow. Ever heard of domain? Let's see you get ANY php to run in ANY browser : P
... it reduces the need to do things like redeclaring variables just to be used in a for loop:
... why is this a Bad Thing? of course other than the fact that I can only use it in one non-existant browser : )
lmao
More to the point foreach is great
so instead of:
var y = x.childNodes;
for(var i=0; iy.length; i++){
do something with y[i]
}
i could just do
foreach(x.childnodes as y){
do something with y
}
So getting back to the point
Peace,
sk
Microsoft's problem with respect to Java was that in extending it they were breaching a contract with Sun. Of course arguments about why they were doing it didn't help them; their contract didn't provide for any such exemptions. Mozilla have no contractual obligations, that I'm aware of, to implement JAvascript/ECMAscript in any particular way.
I don't care about the case; I care about the arguments that nearly everyone on Slashdot made at the time as to why Microsoft were in the wrong - namely that they were deliberately making it harder to write cross-platform code that worked the same way everywhere.
When asked why this was a problem when you can turn off the extensions using a command line switch, nearly everyone wrote back that it was still subverting standards, and that software developers wouldn't know the difference between writing Microsoft-specific Java code, and regular, Sun Java code.
The exact same argument applies here. If this goes ahead, developers won't know when they're writing Mozilla Javascript code, and when they're writing standards-correct ECMAScript code.
The amount of hypocrisy on slashdot is amazing. It seems to be like this:
When Microsoft subverts open standards in an embrace and extend manner, it's evil.
When Mozilla (or anyone else does it), it's great! It's good! It's expected! It's the way innovation goes forward!
At least you guys could discuss amongst yourselves and put out a consistent message at some point. Or heck, just be honest - if it hurts Microsoft, it's A-OK by us!
Coming soon - pyrogyra
Compare the amount of IE written in Java to the amount of Mozilla written in Javascript. Compare the advantages of having a Windows-specific Java program to a 100% portable Java program. Compare the active progress of the Java standard under its developer vs. the stagnant progress of the Javascript standard, and ask yourself which language needed outside help more.
Looks like hypocracy on the surface, but if you dissect the issue most of it goes away. That said, I'd much rather see active development of and participation in open web standards by these organizations, but none of them have even achieved full CSS2 compliance yet.
When Microsoft subverts open standards in an embrace and extend manner, it's evil.
When Mozilla (or anyone else does it), it's great! It's good! It's expected! It's the way innovation goes forward!
You are not arguing with any kind of logic. I still don't understand why comments like this get modded up. Sigh. So let me break this down real slow for you.
The problem with MS's Java extensions wasn't that they added extra functionality to the language or the VM. The problem was that they did so in a non-open manner so that no other implementation of the Java language or runtime could replicate the functionality exactly, causing breakage when developers end up using MS-specific features.
The way Mozilla is adding features to Javascript is open. The specs are out there and the code is out there. ANYBODY can re-implement the features for complete compatibility -- including by copying-and-pasting the code into IE. Do you understand this? The boys in Redmond are NOT locked out of being able to achieve complete compatibility the way other developers were locked out of achieving compatibility with MS's extensions to Java.
For the last time: adding features and extending platforms is NOT a bad thing. This is how innovations occur. What is evil is to do so in a non-open manner so that the extensions cannot be copied and re-implemented by others.
Hopefully we'll not have more of these "slashdot is hypocritical" arguments. It's only hypocrisy when you don't understand what was wrong with MS's behavior.
IMHO, the big trap, particularly for newbies to javascript is using features/functions that are not part of the standard without knowing it.
ie it should be very recognisable that you are using something that is not part of the ECMA standard.
In Java land, that's made somewhat obvious by the import statement - the namespace for standard is java/javax, and, eg com.* or org.* etc are for everything else.
Actually the same should be the case for HTML etc.It should be obvious when there are tags/features being used outside of the standard just by looking.
The best way to let people code to standards is making it easy as hell to tell what is standard or not - without reading a gazillion pages of specs that they may not even understand.
ws
So does Anonymous Coward have good karma?
Damn, doesn't it sound familiar to embrace-and-ex...
Well, let's see. Netscape invented JavaScript, Microsoft did its best to break it. But, not without the help from the Mozilla Foundation, the proprietary plot has been demolished and by now everyone, except the most lazy and ignorant, seems to know that you can't trust Microsoft's innovations to lead you to the light.
But isn't it about the time to make another step forward? And who would YOU choose to bring you there? As for me - I, for one, welcome our new stag-headed lizard overlords!
They're not futzing around with ECMAScript; they're implementing parts of ECMA-357.
This specification has been around since June 2004, look it up on http://www.ecma-international.org/