Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

JavaScript Inventor Speaks Out

Posted by samzenpus on from the listen-up dept.

Anonymous Coward writes "Brendan, on his mozillazine blog talks about JavaScript 1, 2, and in between in light of DHTML and AJAX. In an informal blog entry he answers frequently asked questions such as fixing Unicode in regular expressions, multi-threading, weak numeric typing, and obfuscating code."

4 of 267 comments (clear)

  1. JavaScript by nepheles · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's a pity JavaScript rarely gets the attention it deserves as a legitimate programming language. Most guides to C begin with teaching you how compilers work; most guides to JavaScript teach you how to swap some images.

    This is unfortunate as it's quite powerful: it supports first-class functions and an excellent generic object-system, not to mention the usual suspects such as dynamic memory management.

    Hopefully its apparent resurgence these days (as browser vendors get their compatibility acts together) will change this.

    --
    ((lambda x ((x))) (lambda x ((x))))
  2. Javascript doesn't suck by stevens · · Score: 5, Interesting

    As someone who'd only used Javascript in creating DHTML, I'd worked up a good hate against it. But what I'd hated was really the ridiculously incompatible implementations of the DOM in IE/Netscape. I also hated the embedded space itself--shitty delivery method (encoded or called from HTML, no #include, no namespaces).

    Then I started writing extensions for firefox. I'm trying to show my company that (firefox + xul + js) > (ie + activex). I'm mostly successful, since we already have lots of XML over HTTP data services primed for XmlHttpRequest.

    But it turns out that the language doesn't suck so bad. Sure the namespace problem is JS's fault, but the rest is the embedding. Using JS for firefox exntensions allows you to code to one platform; make more OO libraries, etc. I even generate classes from the DTDs I make the XML services from.

    Who would've thunk it's really a decent language in the dynamic, lambda-toting, functional-ish area?

  3. Re:JS is very functional by CTho9305 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Especially when combined with XUL.

    --
    My server
  4. Re:The difference between the language and... by Da+VinMan · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If that's your "secret" then you need to get out more. :+) Seriously, give Ruby a try. I think it will quite easily scratch the itch you're expressing. It has none of the confusion surrounding it that JavaScript does and it's quite a worthy desktop application and web application language. Oh, and if you're going to give Ruby a try and aren't totally addicted to Emacs or vim at this point, then give the Arachno IDE for Ruby (at http://www.ruby-ide.com/) a spin. It's not free, but it is cheap.

    FYI - Learning Java can also be worth your time; it's not so bad. But really, if you're going to have your application execute on the client in a browser, then Java really isn't a good choice these days. (Although I'm sure some would beg to differ; it is *possible* after all. I just don't recommend it.)

    Have fun!

    --
    Please mod this post only if you think others should/n't read this. I have enough ego^H^H^Hkarma. Thanks!