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
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()?
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 agree, lets bundle it with Linux.
Hmm..
It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
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.
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;
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.
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.
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.