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.
This isn't a case of 'embrace and extend', microsoft-style -- this is a case of extra functionality needed to write extensions. Any web developer using these for public apps is clearly a butt-head.
Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
... 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
They're not extending javascript from what I can see. It looks like they're implementing some features that weren't implemented before.
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.
I think we're going to see some of the same things added to IE7's Javascript engine, but implemented differently.
Which means more special-case code for web developers.
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
I agree, lets bundle it with Linux.
Hmm..
It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
Great more exstentions, more media I want to block, ugh... 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, I love Opera, and it is my browser of choice but I still have to deal with unwanted flash animations. I am stuck on 26.4 bps dialup, due to bad phone lines, and lack of avaliability for cable/dsl/direct wireless. I do not want or need to see more bloat in webpages.
Ok, I am whining again, but you would whine too if you had to surf porn at 2.5 k/s.
Like arts? Like cheesy little Indie mags? Check out www.artwerkmag.com, and don't laugh at the bad coding please.
Deviance from standards (at least in a web environement) is bad because the code that works in one browser won't work in another browser.
But that's not necessarly a bad think in my opinion. If one browser starts extending and empowering web developper in many and novel ways, this browser may well raise the bar for all browsers and shit expectation (if developper find, in mass, that the features are worthwhile, cool, useful, etc...).
However, deviance from standards are bad if they are unsignificant, unrevolutionary, unimportant, just a little improvement (not to confound with many little improvments that combined can make a big difference).
So if you're going to deviate from standard, do it big time!
The other killer feature is, of course, SVG support by default -- unlike the crappy Adobe plugin, fast and reliable SVG support. A lot of stuff that is currently done in Flash can be done in SVG without any dependency on non-free software (or unstable, experimental open source players). Personally, I'm most excited about its possible uses in Wikipedia. Unlike a bitmap file, an SVG can be collaboratively edited: translate text, fix mistakes, and so on. Beyond illustrations, SVG is also useful for zoomable timelines, of which Wikipedia has quite a few, and which are already exported as SVG.
I think that Firefox support for SVG could be a major reason to switch from other browsers if we come up with cool SVG-based applications (not that we really need more reasons to switch!). One thing that would be neat is the ability to generally pan and zoom an SVG file even if there are no JavaScript controls for that, I haven't seen that functionality. Perhaps a bookmarklet or GreaseMonkey script could do the trick.
I can't wait for the final version, but I'd be happy to wait 3 months longer if that's how long it takes to get it ready for primetime. One thing is for sure: Firefox 1.1 will kick butt.
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.
quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
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."
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
var html = <hmtl/>
html.head.title = "my title";
print(html);
This prints as:
<html>
<head>
<title>my title<title>
<head>
<html>
Although this is a contrived example, I find the ability to access XML as native objects using dot-notation to be very convenient and useful.
C'mon, mods, the parent poster makes a good point. It's only "flamebait" if you're ready to apologize for the hypocrisy of the Mozilla developers.
For the record, the new methods are NOT ECMA standards, according to the Array object reference. In other words, developers relying on these methods will be locking themselves into Gecko, unless other vendors scramble to support them, which they will likely do in buggy and incomplete ways--which, incidentally, is exactly what standards (like ECMAScript) were supposed to prevent.
I suspect we'll be seeing similar non-standard extensions to CSS and (X)HTML in the months and years to come, rendering the W3C more and more irrelevant. The standards armistice was always a nice dream, I guess, and it was good while it lasted. So much for that.
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.
You're failing to distinguish between the language and implementations of the language.
By analogy, the C++ language has changed once since 1997 (with the technical corrigendum that fixed a couple relatively minor issues).
However, it was only fairly recently that there has been a compiler and library that has implemented the standard apparently correctly.
This does not mean that when a compiler writer adds support for the hell that is 'export' he or she is extending the language. By contrast, the only thing they're extending is the amount of the language their tool implements.
I don't know what the OP was thinking, but I suspect it's along those lines.
(Granted, from the other posts it sounds like Mozilla is in fact extending the language.)
This entry in Asa Dotzler's blog contains links for downloading this release candidate of Deer Park Alpha 1.1.
The article has links to New Web Developer Features and New Extension Developer Features. There's also a page listing New Browser Features and an unofficial page listing Notable bug fixes.
The shareholder is always right.
I wish that Mozilla would only allow these language extensions (such as the -moz CSS properties) to work in Mozilla extensions. These are obviously useful language tools, but the web is divided enough as it is. This way, the browser extension development scene could serve as a test bed to language extensions. The new syntax and functions don't seem to have been widely tested. If somebody finds a problem with the initial release, will the next version of Mozilla have a new syntax? These extensions should be proposed to a standards organization. People need to stop dumping more undocumented, unstandardized stuff into the web. The way things are going, web developers will soon have to target 4 versions of Mozilla, 3 versions of Internet Explorer, Konqueror, 2 versions of Safari, and Opera.
I think what deserves more attention is the badass development of cairo into Mozilla.
Check out the blog of the main developer thats doing this development. Hes got some excellent demo screenshots.
http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roc/
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.
Hell, I'm guilty of doing this myself. When my domain registrar asked for data they didn't need, all it took was typing a few characters in the location bar (javascript:...) to completely bypass their client-side input check and submit the incomplete form--which the server blindly accepted.
Web apps that don't do server-side input validation are simply the hallmark of an amateur.
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?
I guess I don't get it. If one is only developing for a private intranet and will not be accessed by any other browsers except Mozilla, then this is basically creating propriatary software where anything goes anyway. Otherwise it seems to be similar to the old Netscape/MS IE extensions war for browsers that caused so many problems years ago ( and still is causing problems).
What happens if the company wants to scale up later to allow clients to view or to incorporate this great new stuff on the/a public website. It just doesn't make much sense to me in the long run.
Am I missing something important here?
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/