Microsoft Releases Atlas

Jason Lind writes "Much earlier than anticipated, Microsoft announced the release of Atlas this afternoon at MIX 06. For those who don't know, Atlas is Microsoft's AJAX API for ASP.NET 2, which they claim will greatly reduce the effort in developing AJAX style applications on their platform."

Comments

Re:"No Micwosoft! No!"...

[sammy baby]

When do they release Thiluth, the Athyrian Thrangler?

If it's anything like the rest of ASP.net...

[CastrTroy]

If it's anything like the rest of ASP.net, It will require that you use Microsoft's wonderful web technology, with __viewstates, and other wonderful features. You won't be able to customize it nearly enough to do a professional job, and will only work for really quick and sloppy applications that don't really need AJAX anyway. I use ASP.Net on a daily basis. We've found the best thing to do is to ignore all the form/component stuff that microsoft has built, and just use tools we have built ourselves, which although they do many of the same features, are much more extensible and easier to use.

Re:If it's anything like the rest of ASP.net...

[Anonymous Coward]

don't mistake your incompetence for bad software

Re:If it's anything like the rest of ASP.net...

[noamsml]

GMail using ASP.NET? I don't think so. I'd guess they're using Python or Java. They couldn't use something that runs only on windows, anyway.

Re:If it's anything like the rest of ASP.net...

[mixmasterjake]

Well .NET controls are made to be extended. If you're just ignoring that functionality, though (dealing with custom forms and parsing out the post and get values perhaps) then you're not really buying into .NET - you're just writing normal apps in C# instead of some other language. The form and component stuff is what allows you to design web pages the same way you would design an event-based windows GUI.

The ATLAS framework, for people who do get into .NET style programming, is freakin awesome. All you have to do is drag an ATLAS panel on to your existing page, put the controls you want inside that panel, and that part of your page now refreshes via ajax. It's so simple, it almost seems like cheating.

I would assume, but have not tested it, if the browser doesn't support ajax, ATLAS will dumb it down to regular form posts. Coding that by hand would be a huge amount of effort.

Re:If it's anything like the rest of ASP.net...

[CarpetShark]

Well, he was talking about getting around it, so I don't think he'd be that surprised.

As for them making it cross-platform, that would involve standards, which .NET is a deliberate departure from, for monopolistic purposes. If you want cross-platform, stick with the standards that built the cross-platform internet to begin with.

easier?

[Douglas Simmons]

which they claim will greatly reduce the effort in developing AJAX style applications on their platform

... provided you buy and use their coding gui frontend ware?

Re:easier?

[Sqwubbsy]

I'm pretty sure the Express Edition just lacks a lot of the server integration/front end deployment capabilities. Which, of course, is a lot.

Ajax is a flash in the pan

[jimmyhat3939]

Personally I think the whole Ajax thing is overblown and will die down in the next year or two.

Are there good uses for Ajax? Sure. Google Maps is probably the single best example out there at the moment, and I would expect some more to show up soon.

BUT, will Ajax supplant the client app as the workhorse of productivity applications? Not a chance:

• Ajax requires all communication be serialized using a Javascript callback scheme that requires extensible but ultimately limiting xml communication between client and server.
• To get good performance, Ajax forces you to code a front-end application using JAVASCRIPT. Now I've coded some pretty complicated Javascript stuff, but it's just not the right language for writing full-featured applications. It's barely even object oriented, weak typed, etc. And debugging it is a disaster.
• If instead you decide to have the server make all the UI decisions for you ("put this text here, that box there"), that's fine except you'll see lag anytime you do anything. Imagine trying to update an entire column of data in Ajax Spreadsheet. The server has to send down exactly what to put in each cell and do all the computations for you before you see anything. Google Maps has this problem - I often see white boxes, unrefreshed boxes, etc. and I'm using the latest Firefox!

The funniest thing for me about Ajax is it basically is just doing what Java Applets can do, only Java is better. WTF?!?!

Re:Ajax is a flash in the pan

[Skreems]

Well, there's always Javascript Object Notation Language...

Re:Ajax is a flash in the pan

[AKAImBatman]

My thoughts exactly. I cringe to think to what it would be like to maintain an entire Unix application that did everything in X11. Even with a development environment that was built to support X11, I think it would still be a nightmare. X11 is good for little apps like calculators and graphical terminals, but is not the best way to do the entire application.

Or, on the other hand, maybe we could make widget libraries that do all the heavy lifting of X11 for us? Then we could program to the widget libraries rather than the uber-complex X11 drawing library! Genius!

The same is true of AJAX. Right now, everyone is programming at the lowest level. What AJAX needs is a higher level set of widgets that can accelerate development. Mozilla took the XUL path, but that won't work for cross-browser applications. We need a general-purpose widget library written using the standard HTML DOM. Then AJAX will become a quick and easy option.

Unfortunately, Atlas isn't it. This is just a collection of custom tags to simplify and standardize ASP programming.

Re:Ajax is a flash in the pan

[FecesFlingingRhesus]

While I agree that JavaScript is not the ideal candidate for developing any system, much less a web app it is what we are limited to. Java Applets et. al. are DOA, unsupported or don't fit within the model of web application development. For better or worse those are the breaks.

I differ with you on the presumption that AJAX is irrelevant, as recently as a few months ago I would have concurred with this notion and would have agreed that it was a new spin on some simple technologies. That was until I found the Echo2 framework, it is an Open Source Java framework built on top of the servlet API it is the first comprehensive Ajax framework that I have found and the component model is both flexible and intuitive. It is the first framework where I have not felt the restrictions of the web metaphor creeping into design decisions. It has changed my idea of what Ajax web apps are capable of in terms of usability, speed, code reuse and overall system design.

Re:Ajax is a flash in the pan

[pnatural]

Ajax requires all communication be serialized using a Javascript callback scheme that requires extensible but ultimately limiting xml communication between client and server.

False. The web server can return text, plan old xml (POX), or JSON or anything that can be encoded over HTTP.

To get good performance, Ajax forces you to code a front-end application using JAVASCRIPT. Now I've coded some pretty complicated Javascript stuff, but it's just not the right language for writing full-featured applications. It's barely even object oriented, weak typed, etc. And debugging it is a disaster.

False. You're mixing concepts here (performance and client scripting language). Further, EMCAScript isn't OO and shouldn't be: it's a prototype based language. And any developer tackling this problem in today's world should use one of the many freely available JS libs (Dojo, MochiKit, Prototype, etc). Hell, MochiKit has a built in debugger.

If instead you decide to have the server make all the UI decisions for you ("put this text here, that box there"), that's fine except you'll see lag anytime you do anything. Imagine trying to update an entire column of data in Ajax Spreadsheet. The server has to send down exactly what to put in each cell and do all the computations for you before you see anything.

Knock, knock, web server calling. HTML UI decisions start on the server and get modified locally by the client. This is the nature of HTML and always has been.

Google Maps has this problem - I often see white boxes, unrefreshed boxes, etc. and I'm using the latest Firefox!

Oh, lordie. You realize that Google maps doesn't use Ajax, but instead makes heavy use of IFRAMES? (last i checked, this was true). And you realize, of course, that your connection speed might be to blame?

You've painted AJAX with a pretty broad and off-base brush. Better luck explaining it to the ignorant.

Re:Ajax is a flash in the pan

[SerpentMage]

Considering I wrote a book entitled Ajax Patterns and Best Practices the mistake made by many is the fact that Ajax is not about extending the current Web paradigm. Ajax when done properly includes REST, Web Services and a decoupled architectured. This means the client is not dependent on the server and vice versa. Granted the client makes Web Service calls, but the client does not know the technology used to implement the Web Service.

What makes me laugh about many vendors in contrast to the community is that they simply don't get it. Microsoft and co think Ajax is a "style" of programming by extending and locking the client to the server. This is plain simply wrong, wrong, wrong!

Now to address to your questions:

1) First Ajax does not require XML, but relies on the Permutations pattern. The Permutations pattern is a REST style web service that says the content sent and received by the client and server depends on the needs of the client. That might be JavaScript, XML, bitmap images or even HTML.

2) Coding a front end in JavaScript is not a problem. Coding everything with JavaScript is a problem. Just like coding everything with Java is a problem. Writing a good Ajax applications means creating a client that calls a server using Web Services.

3) To address your problem you use the Infinite Data pattern that uses callbacks that sends data to the client as it received.

Again, part of the problem is that many are considering Ajax as an extension of the current Web Paradigm. Ajax is not that. Ajax is a SOA client that makes Web Service calls. Granted I will give you that companies like Microsoft confuse the issue by creating stuff that completely breaks REST, and Ajax design concepts.

If you want more information feel free to check out my site http://www.devspace.com/ as I have some prototype implementations of the Ajax and REST patterns that I was talking about (inc source), and look at the Ajax QA. And if you have any further questions just send me an email and I will be more than happy to answer your questions.

Re:Ajax is a flash in the pan

[MobyDisk]

That's a great analogy, but there is one crucial difference between X11 and Javascript: X11 was designed in an academic environment, while JavaScript + AJAX evolved in a de-facto way alongside HTML.

You could write Widgets to run on AJAX just like you could on X11, but it will be really tough since AJAX is not a standard, and it wasn't intended for that purpose. It's just not a solid basis. I'm not saying it won't happen, but it won't be pretty. I'm not sure that such a widget library will ever be truly reliable given the willingness we've seen of browser manufacturers *coughMicrosoftcough* to blatently disregard standards.

Re:Ajax is a flash in the pan

[FecesFlingingRhesus]

see my other post http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=180 799&cid=14959879 it already exits it is called Echo2 it is a open source Java web framework. AJAX is integrated seamlessly into the component model. It is the most comprehensive toolkit I have found. I have been researching them for my new project for several months now and Echo2 is leaps and bounds ahead of the other competing projects.

Re:Ajax is a flash in the pan

[Run4yourlives]

um... in case you haven't noticed, google is updating those images on the fly... which is a textbook definition of how to use ajax...

Re:Ajax is a flash in the pan

[dcam]

plan old xml (POX)

Is it just me or is that acronym a little too accurate. pox = Syphilis

AJAX is bad

[jjeffrey]

I really dislike AJAX, for the following reasons:

1: Does anyone know of any significant javascript code which works on two different browsers without having to have conditionals based on the user agent?

2: Most AJAX applications break accessibility rules, which are law in many countries (including the UK, where I am).

3: AJAX provides another attack vector on websites. Look at the myspace worm. I know that comes down to bad programming, but still it's another chance to miss something.

4: A number of companies block javascript at the firewall - trust me, it's true. Imagine how well an AJAX site will work there!

5: Javascript is not available in all UA's (e.g. Lynx) - I firmly believe that no website should ever NEED javascript - in fact in my sites I avoid it all together.

I wish people would forget about stuff like this and concentrate on at least getting VALID html and CSS in their sites, preferably using at least semi recent standards like XHTML 1.0. Eh slashdot coders? I mean you!!!

Re:AJAX is bad

[lukewarmfusion]

1. You shouldn't be testing for a UA, but for object support.

2. You can build accessibility into an AJAXified application, but it will take more work. I find that the people who care enough about accessibility on normal websites are the people who are also willing to put in the extra work making applications accessible.

3. Another attack vector? Sure, but introducing any technology introduces new risks. That doesn't mean you should dismiss it entirely. Bad code is bad code - no matter whether it's AJAX or PHP or Ruby.

4. This goes back to accessibility. If a client doesn't have Javascript at all, you need to account for that. If you're writing an app that absolutely requires Javascript, then you need to accept that some users won't be able to use the site.

5. This is the crux of your argument, I think. Some applications are dependent upon Javascript for a good reason - they aren't normal websites. The example I use is of a university that has thirty or so platform and browser combinations to support. Deploying an internal desktop app is expensive, difficult to support, etc. But a web app can be brought up on all of the supported environments - which means you can build for those and ignore anything that's unsupported (like Lynx). We're talking about interfaces which replace a desktop app - but still need comparable functionality, speed, and interfaces.

The web has always been a quickly changing landscape. AJAX is a feature on that landscape, not the future of it. Like anything else it has its valid uses and invalid uses, can be abused, and can be done poorly. But so far, none of this is a reason to dismiss it entirely.

Re:AJAX is bad

[AKAImBatman]

1: Does anyone know of any significant javascript code which works on two different browsers without having to have conditionals based on the user agent?

As someone else pointed out, you test the function or member to see if it exists. If not, you patch the browser on the fly. The only IE specific code I have is code to patch it for DOM Events and up-to-date String functions. This is possible because you can do something like this in Javascript:

if(!String.prototype.slice)
  String.prototype.slice = function(start, end) {...};

These sorts of patches are only necessary for IE (Opera, Safari, and Mozilla all seem to follow standards), and will automatically deactivate if Microsoft ever fixes their out-of-date-and-can't-even-support-a-ten-year-old- standard browser.

2: Most AJAX applications break accessibility rules, which are law in many countries (including the UK, where I am).

If by "most" you mean "Google", then I agree with you. It's not necesary to break accessibility rules, though many text-to-speech browsers are so far behind that it's nearly impossible to support them with anything newer than Netscape 3.0 code.

3: AJAX provides another attack vector on websites. Look at the myspace worm. I know that comes down to bad programming, but still it's another chance to miss something.

JavaScript exploits are nothing new. You might be vulnerable even if your site doesn't use a shred of JavaScript itself. i.e. It's entirely a problem with the browser -> site communication, and what your site allows/disallows.

4: A number of companies block javascript at the firewall - trust me, it's true. Imagine how well an AJAX site will work there!

Say, wha? That's the first I've ever heard of such draconian restrictions. Such firewall rules would break a large chunk of the internet for their users. I sincerely doubt that this will be a major problem.

5: Javascript is not available in all UA's (e.g. Lynx) - I firmly believe that no website should ever NEED javascript - in fact in my sites I avoid it all together.

I hate to break it to you, but apps designed to use AJAX are too complex for Lynx to render effectively anyway. When you make an AJAX app, you make a thin-client application that's intended for delivery over the Internet. The 0.001% of the net that refuses to surf with anything other than Lynx will simply have to not use your site. The rest of the world will be reaping the benefits of thin client applications.

Mythology, lol

[tehshen]

In mythology, Atlas and the Titans revolted against the Olympians, lost, had his brothers betray him, and was punished to carry the world. Is this some sort of metaphor for the IE development cycle?

Re:Microsoft learning its lesson?

[truthsearch]

Last time I used it .NET gave 2 output options: Netscape 4.0 compatible HTML or IE-specific HTML. There was no full support for XHTML or HTML 4. That counts as working in all browsers. But the ASP.NET output I've investigated is far from the best.

Not to muddy the waters with facts...

[YU Nicks NE Way]

But this is the March CTP for Atlas, not the final release.

Re:Microsoft learning its lesson?

[Anonymous Coward]

Something from MS that works on MS competitors too? That's unusual. I mean, there's probably a catch in there somewhere, like with ActiveX.

Opera is still struggling, but Firefox compatibility seems to be a priority on their new Live services as well (btw, I like that finally someone is trying to move the search ui forward from last decade, even though it takes some getting used to..)

Re:Microsoft learning its lesson?

[Anonymous Coward]

ASP.NET 2.0 has a lot more options, including XHTML.

Re:Key words are...

[nixkuroi]

After having watched the guy put together an Ajax application in 10 minutes (typing in all the code right in front of all 1700 of the people in the room) and then watching him open the exact page he created in Safari on a mac, I can pretty well assure you that it DOES work the way MS claims. Now that isn't to say that they haven't built any non-compliant components into it, but what I saw today will handle MOST of the basics of what you'd want on a data driven site without difficulty.

How about we stop trolling and actually check it out before tearing it down.

Re:Firefox, Opera, Safari, and Internet Explorer..

[truthsearch]

The official website, just like Microsoft's regular website, is full of meaningless rhetoric. I can write complete crap HTML that works in every browser. That definitely doesn't make it good. And less code than "classic" ASP, PHP, or JSP? Not once when I worked with ASP.NET for 2 years did I find reduction of code compared to other options. Maybe there are some cases I didn't see, but a blanket statement like that is just wrong.

The only people who back up this rhetoric are Microsoft employees on their blogs and those who haven't tried any alternatives.

that's why we need a toolkit

[penguin-collective]

All of those problems can be addressed by creating a good AJAX toolkit; a toolkit can fall back to plain HTML when Javascript isn't available, it can do the right per-browser customizations, etc.

However, from an interaction point of view, AJAX is enormously useful and a big advance over plain HTML pages. It's unfortunate that the underlying technologies are so ugly (Javascript, XML, ...), but, again, with a good toolkit, you don't have to ever think about that.

Re:Microsoft learning its lesson?

[ZachPruckowski]

See my point is that I doubt they'd ever fully support all other browsers as well as IE, because they don't want to miss a chance to give IE another boost.

Why the un-searchable names?

[hazem]

What is it with Microsoft and its penchant for product names that are virtually useless for doing searches?

Access
Word
Windows
Excel
Publisher
Sequel

Contrast that with:
linux
mozilla
firefox
mysql
php

At least with these, you have a reasonable chance of finding what you're looking for without a ton of other non-related crap.

Re:Why the un-searchable names?

[Fhqwhgadss]

You're not supposed to search for support. You're supposed to buy support.

Re:Why the un-searchable names?

[hazem]

I usually don't want to get Microsoft's webpage when I search for these things. I can just as easily go to Microsoft's page and search if I want their page.

But, often I'm looking for reviews, example code, "how-to"s, etc. People with good information don't always put a "Microsoft" in front of "Access" when they write about it. And will "Microsoft Access" turn up results for a page that only ever says, "MS Access"?

And like someone mentioned before, try doing a search for anything meangful for .net.

The names they pick can often make it difficult to find meaningful information about the products or using the products because you have to wade through tons of other stuff to find it.

Re:Why the un-searchable names?

[booch]

Um, I don't think Microsoft sells a product named Sequel. I think you're thinking of "SQL Server". Most people like to pronounce the "SQL" as "sequel". And other non-Microsoft technologies are problematic to search for: C, C++, shell, Mac, IP, Excite, log files.

But you're right -- it does make it hard to search for many of the most popular Microsoft products. The sad thing is that Microsoft most likely chooses generic names on purpose. They want to take advantage of (embrace and extend) existing language. I'm glad their "Digital Nervous System" term never caught on. It's bad enough that I have to deal with 3 possible meanings of IP (Internet Protocol, Information Protection, Intellectual Property).

Atlas?

[TellarHK]

*shrug*

Well, Here We Go

[MikeyTheK]

Well, the AJAX wars have started, and M$ maybe just got off the first shot. We'll see. With http://www.morfik.com/'s public beta just around the corner the RAD IDE AJAX tools are finally coming on scene. We'll see what people can do with these tools, and whether AJAX is REALLY as overrated as some are claiming. Personally I'll bet that once people can get their hands on tools that let them build web apps as easily as they can desktop apps (and unplug them, i.e. run them locally or over the 'net, as you can with Morfik) you'll see a huge increase in web applications.

The number of AJAX tools that are on their way is staggering. http://www.tersus.com/ is one designed for the absolute noob, and http://www.backbase.com/ is also a potential option.

Re:Well, Here We Go

[MikeyTheK]

Frameworks aren't the same thing as IDE/RAD tools. http://www.axaxian.com/ discusses lots of frameworks every day. Ruby on Rails does AJAX. However, this isn't the same thing as having a complete integrated tool that does it all for you. Any geek can spank out httpRequests, but this next generation of tool should make rich web apps a lot eaiser to build, which means that a lot more creative people will be building them.

Standards Compliant

[Landak]

Standards Compliant Hmn?

Try the CSS one for a real laugh :).

Re:Where's the beef?

[earache]

Are you completely retarded?

How this got moderated up is beyond me. It's obvious that you haven't used Atlas, much less even LOOKED at it.

The whole point of the library is to hide away the details, so XMLHttpRequest and it's ilk are tucked away neatly in the variety of external scripts that ship with Atlas.

There are only 4 or 5 controls that come with Atlas, and they're mostly non-visual anyways. The UpdatePanel is a "panel" like control that can automatically reload it's contents on a postback sent via xmlhttprequest. You don't need to do a thing.

Whomever moderated this all the way to +5 is just as retarded as the original poster.

It is Slashdot though ...

Did you guys even read TFA???

[moochfish]

I'm not really a fan of MS, but I recognize they have a lot going for them. I'm a PHP developer so please don't assume I'm defending it because I like ASP. Really, I don't.

I think a bunch of people commenting read the press release and made their judgements without actually investigating how incredible the technology is. There was even the flamebait who posted something about cross browser compatibility. Well, watch the freaking demo video before you go trolling. You can find their first of many such demos here:

mms://wm.microsoft.com/ms/uifx/asp_net_atlas.wmv

Maybe I find it amazing because I'm not that used to ASP development, but I'm thoroughly impressed how far MS has come in making developing for their platform easy. The demo I pasted above shows him making a pretty standard data grid. That part is cool, at best, to anybody familiar with ASP, and flat out amazing to anybody who's never seen ASP sites being developed. About 2/3 into the video he busts out the new Atlas code (so fast forward to there). It was maybe 3 additional ASP tags to implement full asynchronous functionality plus one more to setup a "updating..." dialog. Suddenly, a page that required refreshes on any action could add, edit, and *sort* paginated data without any refreshes.

And then he fires up the same code in Firefox and goes to show that it works exactly the same in both browsers. 3 ASP tags.

I'm sorry, but how can you blindly bash that? Sure there's equivalent technology in the works out there (such as rails), but it doesn't make this any less amazing. If there was a development platform as complete as MS's offering but based on Python/PHP, people would be pissing their pants. To ASP developers, this will make creating AJAX functionality unbelievably easy.

MS just scored major Hype 2.0 points today. But the hype isn't all unjustified. Again, go learn about this before you bash it.

Re:Where's the beef?

[AKAImBatman]

More likely, the summary is screwed up. It takes you here when you need to go here. I discussed this a bit more in my response to someone else.

This is one of those times that I am actually happy to be wrong. With all the nonsense surrounding AJAX as it is, all we needed was Microsoft throwing fuel on the fire.

Re:Where's the beef?

[Forbman]

Do you know how ASP/ASP.Net work? the server-side code spits out a bunch of JavaScript code to the client page. This client-side JavaScript is what talks back to the server. Hmm... AJAX.

MS got bitch-slappedn in the ASP days because its server-side objects (even though you're invoking them from VBScript, you're invoking COM objects) were emitting browser-detecting code and not playing nice with Not-IE, or emit Not-IE hostile JavaScript (i.e., MS' DOM model). With work, it is possible to get around this.

The really hard part is getting an ASP/ASP.Net page to POST to a 3rd-party server, say, like if you're trying to send an XmlSignature to a 3rd-party...

ATLAS Homepage

[HeyBob!]

Here's the site:
http://atlas.asp.net/default.aspx?tabid=47

Released? Or just another preview?

[xbrownx]

The article doesn't say, but the official site seems to make it sound just like the March CTP (Community Technology Preview) has been released... ..In other words, not the final version, which makes this headline incorrect.

Wrong Direction?

[localman]

But isn't one of the coolest things about AJAX the fact that it's pretty much platform independent? Why would anyone want to tie it to a particular platform? Didn't Java already try that?

Cheers.

Greatly reduce any competition too

[sl4shd0rk]

apparently, this would be a preliminary step in the right direction to "Fucking kill google" .. and anything not Microsoft Ajax (tm) http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/09/03/05 15250&from=rss

Microsoft Atlas Shrugged!

[Orion Blastar]

I code Javascript, no two web browsers seem to be able to use the same Javascript and you have to rewrite them for each browser. Then there are those who use web browsers without Javascript like Lynx, or people who disabled their Javascript for fear of Spyware/Adware infecting their system via their browser. Ajax uses Javascript. ASP.NET is supposed to have been designed to be able to run scripts at the web server without running scipts on the client, yet it fails to do this. My old employer tried to switch to ASP.NET when 1.0 was beta back in late 2001. They are still having problems getting ASP.NET working with different browsers that various clients of theirs use, that are not under their control.

My solution was to use Java, instead of client-side scripting in Javascript and VBScript. Then any browser that supports Java can run a Java servlet and it can be programmed to be easy to use. Just make sure that their JRE version matches the one we use to develop the web applications for and everything should work out. I even worked out XML transfers to be used between the corporate web server and the client web server. We only need write one version of the Java application, instead of several versions of the Javascript support for each web page. The time we would have saved on production would have allowed us to do other things. But, nooooooooooooooooo, they went with ASP.NET because Microsoft promised them the moon, and now they are making posts to Microsoft's Newsgroups asking why ASP.NET is not working as Microsoft said it would. I am just sitting back and enjoying the fireworks and relaxing and being glad I am no longer one of those programmers being lead by Managers who have no idea how technology really works.

Java Competitor

[coldtone]

If your using Java and want a good Ajax framework. Check out Icefaces

It's currently in alpha release.

You're right, but...

[Jerk City Troll]

[JavaScript is] just not the right language for writing full-featured applications. It's barely even object oriented, weak typed, etc. And debugging it is a disaster.

Actually, EMCA Script is perhaps one of the most object-oriented languages in use today. Absolutely everything is an object and there are no primatives. And as for debugging, Venkma is probably one of the most powerful debugging environments I have ever used for any language or platform?

As for your comment regarding Java Applets, it is really a matter of ubiquity. Every browser (for our intents and purposes) has ECMA Script support. However, not all of them have the Java Runtime Environment plug-in.

Write AJAX apps in Qt-style GUI programming

[xynopsis]

I've read the previous comments that AJAX apps won't cut it because of its dependency on complicated Java and that programming complex UI logic in Javascript is a bad idea.

We've been working on a toolkit called Wt that solves this problem among other issues when attempting to do AJAX. Best of all, it is pattterned on Qt and allows you to design webapps as you would in any desktop Qt application. The event mechanism is handled using signal and slots, allowing the same programming elegance found in Qt-based software. It allows you to focus on the design and logic of your program in one place and one place only! Quite similar to how Qt hides the details of the underlying window system from the programmer. Please check it out!

so let me get this straight

[michaelnz]

They've named their development tool Atlas and their search engine and map tool Windows Live. Good job marketing department!

Re:Did you guys even read TFA??? - ASTROTURFER

[bit01]

... incredible ... amazing ... thoroughly impressed ... cool ... flat out amazing ... amazing ... unbelievably ... major ...

Lying astroturfer, fraudulently misrepresenting company propaganda as objective third party opinion.

• First paragraph gives fake credentials to suck wary reader in. Check.
• Rest of article in hype overdrive. Check.
• Claims alternative points of view are troll/flamebait/bash. Check.
• Article is a disorganised mishmash of "positive" points. Check.
• Claims that making the equivalent of a procedure call to existing code is amazing. Check.
• Claims functionality that's been available for years under other names is somehow new. Check.
• Take home point links to further marketing drivel. Check.

It appears to have been mod'ed up by sock puppets too.

Don't think it's an astroturfer? Learn more about undercover marketing, M$' astroturfing history, non-M$ astroturfing, net astroturfing and non-net astroturfing.

---

The majority of modern marketing is nothing more than an arms race to get mind share. Everybody loses except the parasitic marketing "industry".

Re:Did you guys even read TFA??? - ASTROTURFER

[NutscrapeSucks]

If this sort of post bothers you, I can't imagine how you can deal with any of the comment forums on this site. The Apple Topics in particular are choked with "appleturf", as are any "free software" or EFF topics. The moderation system in general encourages and rewards "Party Line" posts so that's what you get.