Move Over AJAX, Make Room for ARAX

sasserstyl writes "eWeek reports that Microsoft's Silverlight platform will support Ruby client-side scripting, enabling ARAX — or Asynchronous Ruby and XML. Would be cool to have the option to script client-side in something other than Javascript. 'In essence, using ARAX, Ruby developers would not have to go through the machinations of using something like the RJS (Ruby JavaScript) utility, where they write Ruby code and RJS generates JavaScript code to run on the client, Lam said. "Sure, you could do it that way, but then at some point you might have to add some JavaScript code that adds some custom functionality on the client yourself," he said. "So there's always that sense of, 'Now I'm in another world. And wouldn't it be nice if I have this utility class I wrote in Ruby...' Today if I want to use it in the browser I have to port it to JavaScript. Now I can just run it in the browser."'"

Comments

Um, my browser doesn't support Ruby

[Anonymous Coward]

Does yours?

Re:Um, my browser doesn't support Ruby

[stoolpigeon]

Not only that - my platform doesn't support silverlight.

Re:Um, my browser doesn't support Ruby

[catmistake]

Agreed.
Ajax (Asynchronous Javascript and XMLhttpRequest) was given a name because it was a growing trend; many decided to use it independently, and naming it something made sense. ARAX, or whatever, is just an idea a few people have. I see no trend.

Re:Um, my browser doesn't support Ruby

[happyemoticon]

It's more similar to Python in my mind. It's a post-Perl interpreted language that attempts to have better object-orientation while not being overly restrictive. It inherits a lot more from Perl than Python does, so you can accomplish most tasks in a variety of ways. Neither is anywhere near as rigid as Java - you don't have to catch or throw every exception, you don't have to make ten subclasses and an interface to write Hello World, etc.

I get into these kinds of discussions with my boss all the time. He looks at Java as the ultimate golden hammer, and I tend to use a variety of languages. There are a bunch of little syntactic things I love about Ruby, but in the end it's mostly a question of style, politics and library support.

Re:Um, my browser doesn't support Ruby

[an.echte.trilingue]

Microsoft knows that web applications will soon threaten their client-side sales model. They also know that places like Google have enough of a head start in the AJAX world that they will never catch up (tried google apps lately? It is really getting there, especially if you do a lot of collaborative work). This is why IE's javascript standards compliancy still sucks balls even though its CSS support isn't bad: they want to make life hard for people trying to develop in AJAX.

Now they are trying to develop proprietary technologies to compete: Silverlight and this new ARAX bull will replace Flash and AJAX. They will release some shit-hot developer tools that make it really easy to build shiny websites on the Silverlight/ARAX stack so that before long half the web is written in it. Then, ARAX and Silverlight will get proprietary extensions (new functionality! woot!) and break on non-IE browsers (got to assure that OS monopoly). They will also add some undocumented APIs so that the (subscription-based) Microsoft Apps runs faster than anything anybody else comes ups with, and boom!

Profit.

Re:Um, my browser doesn't support Ruby

[Anonymous Coward]

Rails. Is. Not. About. Being. Fast. Secure. And. Scalable. It's about pretty and maintainable code, and being the shortest route from idea to finished webapp. Rails is widely considered as the best framework in the world for doing just that.

Re:Um, my browser doesn't support Ruby

[Trails]

The masses = programmers building business software.

The masses tend to use established languages with established frameworks, because their bosses say so.

Their bosses say so because they(the bosses) don't want to pay for re-inventing and then maintain the proverbial wheel.

Hence, no matter how hotshit/elegant/orgasm-inducing/LISP-ish/un-PERL-ish/whatever a language is, if doesn't have a viable persistence model and/or mvc, etc... corporate folk won't use it.

Re:Um, my browser doesn't support Ruby

[PietjeJantje]

Ok, I'll bite. What makes MVC a "piss poor model" for web applications? Because the web, like he said, is stateless. A request comes in, the server compiles and constructs this whole MVC structure from the scripting language, with 1 page object, 1 database object, etc. etc., generates 1 page, and then.. well then it throws everything away. Well, joy. Compare this to desktop apps where stuff is in memory and real processes take place between objects. So for the web, it degenerates both object oriented programming and MVC into mere ways to organize your code, more likely than not in a much too complex and time-consuming way.

Re:Um, my browser doesn't support Ruby

[jeremy_fsu]

I've been using C since 1991 and I love Ruby. Does Ruby replace C? Absolutely not. Is Ruby syntax like C? No again. Why do I like Ruby? Simple, it's very easy to write, and you can do alot with only a little code. Think of it as a domain specific language. Here's how I organize my toolbox (skillset):

Ruby: When I need a quick script on Linux and need MySQL or RegEx or simple File I/O and don't want a hassle, performance doesn't matter, or I'm playing with Rails

C: Performance matters, but it' not complex enough for an OO lang.

C++: Performance matters, and it's complex enough to warrant an OO lang.

C#: My client insists on using MS products

Javascript: I need to do something client side like AJAX or manipulating the DOM.

These Ruby vs C or (insert favorite lang here) are silly and a waste of time. When you take time to learn multiple languages both interpreted and compiled, you learn that each one has it's place.

Now Ruby vs Perl vs Python debates make a little sense because they are all interpreted. So my two cents on that debate is: Ruby is very readable and looks pretty when I write it. Not so for Python and Perl. So it's a personal preference really.

So ARAX? Sounds like a decent application of Ruby to me. But Javascript is already widely deployed so you won't see me messing with it until the majority out there have it in their browsers.

Re:Um, my browser doesn't support Ruby

[nuzak]

MVC in web apps has about as much to do with Smalltalk's old MVC as unix signals have to do with the physical control lines they used to correspond to (gimme a break I couldn't find a car analogy). MVC is nothing more than three-tier, with the middle tier itself adding some extra separation between processing requests (controller) and generating output (view).

HTTP is stateless. So is UDP. Does that make every online game that uses it stateless? The web is not a protocol.

Re:Um, my browser doesn't support Ruby

[an.echte.trilingue]

First, IE 7's javascript engine is vastly fixed over what they offered before. I am afraid I am going to have to call shill on this one. I am sure that you remember that acid3 tests ECMAScript compliance.

• Trident (ie7): 13
• Trident (ie6): 6
• Gecko: 75

Opera and Safari are of course, disqualified as they hacked together 100 scores.

I tinker with JS a bit, and things like attaching event listeners, getting first children, getting attributes, getting values, getting the URL, basically everything DOM related has to be treated differently in IE.

Worse, XMLHttpRequest, the very core of AJAX, is broken in IE7, but not IE6.

I am sorry, but you are wrong on that count. I guess if you call horrible to slightly less horrible an improvement, this is a good thing.

Visual Studio 2008 works extremely well for creating AJAX enabled content that works cross-browser, without rolling all your own client code. Oh, it becomes clear. Microsoft wants to make it impossible to implement your own JS solution so that you have to buy into their development tools to build a site that works. What a surprise.

Third, Silverlight is not an IE/Windows only platform. It is, however, a Windows only platform. Moonlight is still vaporware, last I heard.

And if you really think they're going to try that bait and switch tactic again, you're nuts. MS is not that stupid. They actually want Silverlight to be valid and compete with Flash. What makes you say that?

But why am I arguing? I should be asking for examples of where MS is doing as you suggest they will. I cannot give examples of events that have yet to transpire. The company's history is well known.

Re:Um, my browser doesn't support Ruby

[DragonWriter]

Stunning insight. A language "for people who hate Java" is nothing like Java? Wow.

GP did not characterize it as merely a language "for people who hate Java", but as "Java for people who hate Java". Which might be a fair description of, say, C#, which is similar in role in many big-picture ways to Java, but addresses numerous points which make people who hate Java do so. It is not a useful description of Ruby, which is nothing like Java except insofar as both are Turing-complete programming languages.

Re:Um, my browser doesn't support Ruby

[profplump]

Actually a lot of plumbers do electrical work. And HVAC work. Haven't you ever seen a van for "AAA Heating, Plumbing and Electrical"?

Somebody update NoScript.

[SatanicPuppy]

Huh. I guess javascript was too fast, to secure, and too well understood for Microsoft's new toy. Or maybe Active X's massive exploitable bugs have been brought under control?

I'm seriously having trouble seeing a use for this. If I can't do it in Javascript, why wouldn't I do it in Java or C#? Instead of throwing another interpreted language on the browser, I'd much rather load an applet created with a static/strongly typed language. Sure, there are all kinds of security issues, but at least they're existing, understood issues. With weakly typed Ruby, you have injection issues coupled with the features that javascript rightly cut out for security reasons.

Obviously it's a big deal for Ruby, but I can't help but think that it's a boneheaded move for Microsoft. They've spent all this time pushing .Net and then they decide they're going to hitch their new flashy webthingy to Ruby...

Re:Somebody update NoScript.

[moderatorrater]

Not only that, but they're not adding a language that's significantly different. They're not adding Java (which Google might appreciate) or C/C++, they're adding Ruby, which is a language very similar to javascript (certainly more similar than JS or Ruby are to Java and their ilk). Port a language with better scalability and modularity, not more of the same.

Re:Somebody update NoScript.

[x_MeRLiN_x]

Why exactly would they be adding (managed) C++ support when they have already done so?

I can see 75% of Slashdot talking out of their ass on this one.

Re:Somebody update NoScript.

[Anonymous Coward]

> using a language whose implementation is known to be abysmally slow

...except the whole point here is that Microsoft is not using said implementation, you know.

Do we really need this?

[_bug_]

Silverlight is going to allow .NET code, not just Ruby. Do we really need this? Do we really need to introduce multiple client-side languages like this? We're just creating more avenues to exploit clients. Adobe has had years to get Flash right and we're still finding exploits that can be used to install malware in the background.

Couple that with injection attacks being discovered on popular web sites and the growing use of Deep Packet Inspection and, honestly, we might as well just allow everyone in the world root access to all of our machines.

This is not a step forwards, it's a major step backwards. We can't be blinded by the prospect of client-side Ruby. We have to look past that and see that there are some very real security risks involved. It's less a cause for celebration and more a cause for caution towards installing Silverlight (or Flash, or any other type of embedded object that allows for client scripting).

Re:Do we really need this?

[Jesus_666]

Even worse, it's VBScript 2.

Re:This time

[drinkypoo]

Everybody thinks that javascript just doesn't cut it for current Web Apps, and it was never meant to work like we make it work today.

Are you a troll (perhaps even a shill) or just a schmuck? There's nothing seriously wrong with Javascript as a language, only with specific implementations, some of which are actually quite good these days.

I'm guessing you are just a troll, but I don't want anyone to think you're right or anything and I have a little time on my hands :P

Re:This time

[poetmatt]

Why?

Why is this good to run Silverlight?

Running silverlight on anything non-windows is like shoving legal issues up someone's ass and waiting for them to cough out the settlement.

Ruby on rails also seemed to work just fine without siverlight...and as comments show, more languages in the mix is not a good thing.

So yes, people are trashing MS because there is something wrong with this. If MS did anything right, we wouldnt' trash MS, we'd praise them. In this case, as usual, they haven't done anything right. I'd be glad to praise MS if they actually did something that wasn't underhanded, but when was the last time you can recall them doing that?

Re:This time

[JasterBobaMereel]

Microsoft did something not cool and not useful

Not cool as in hijack something cool and do something that ties it to their latest thing...

Not useful as in only works in the next version of their system, if you have their modified version of Ruby and IIS and use Internet Explorer ...

So this is another way to break all the other systems ... and Silverlight was allegedly cross-platform ... this cuts it down to .... windows only again ...

Scalability?

[weston]

Port a language with better scalability

Ah, yes. Scalability in a client-side scripting environment. For the times when a browser has to be able to handle requests from thousands of users at once!

Re:This time

[Simon (S2)]

Microsoft did something not cool and not useful Well, if you don't like it, don't use it. We all have different tastes.

Not cool as in hijack something cool and do something that ties it to their latest thing... How exactly is this going to tie ruby to silverlight? This will use ruby in IE instead/together with javascript. This will in no way affect MRI that will continue to exist just fine as it did until now.

Not useful as in only works in the next version of their system, if you have their modified version of Ruby and IIS and use Internet Explorer ... The article and the summary are very clear that this will be a client side implementation of ruby. No IIS involved. And yes, it will work only in IE if nobody else implements it. What's wrong with that? It's the same with XUL: nobody else can use that.

So this is another way to break all the other systems ... and Silverlight was allegedly cross-platform ... this cuts it down to .... windows only again ... Ruby is cross platform. If Silverlight will ever be, we'll see (I am not holding my breath).

Re:Uh...

[ThatDamnMurphyGuy]

Security has nothing to do with strong/weak typing. Strong typing is simply the first stage of testing code and validating input.

http://mindview.net/WebLog/log-0025

Re:This time

[Foofoobar]

Microsoft has built alot of great tools and products but I fail to see how hitching their failing Silverlight product to an overly hyped language whose golden days are now over is such a great idea. Al the CEO's and developers who jumped on the Ruby bandwagon are quickly abandoning it and Silverlight has gailed to even make a dent in Flash's market share. How are either of these going to help each other? Why would the consumer want to be forced to download both of these things?

Re:This time

[asc99c]

Probably shouldn't feed the troll, but ...

His argument was against your assertion that 'everybody thinks javascript just doesn't cut it for current web apps'.

This plainly isn't true as lots of people are actually very impressed by the javascript language, and just a bit frustrated that IE6 / IE7 / IE on Safari work so differently to everything else. For internal work I just ignore IE, and target Firefox only.

Even Joel has praise for javascript - take a look at his 'Can Your Programming Language Do This?' article at
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2006/08/01.html

A better option than Javascript would be great, but Ruby hardly looks like the best option. A much better use of time for Microsoft would be making their Javscript engine for IE more standards compliant.

Re:look more closely at TFA...

[recoiledsnake]

What's so insecure about the MSIL(by which I presume you mean .NET) compared to any other environment(Java, Rails, PHP, etc)? I am really curious to know. I know this is Slashdot but please try not to reply with 'Everyone knows it is'.

1995 called, they want their article back!

[ChunderDownunder]

Sun Microsystems launched this idea around 13 years ago... Java applets.

Though Java-centric in nature, the JVM provides a secure sandboxed environment to host numerous languages including Ruby, Python, Lisp and even JavaScript. Throw in Groovy and Scala for home-grown alternatives.

Thanks to the efforts of IcedTea (principally funded by RedHat) and others, Java 6 will be fully GPL by the end of the year.

oh boy...

[93 Escort Wagon]

Another non-standard scripting implementation that only works with one particular browser. Didn't anyone learn from vbscript?