Slashdot Mirror


Google Releases Open Source JavaScript Tools

Dan Jones writes "Google has open sourced several of its key JavaScript application development tools, hoping that they will prove useful for external programmers to build faster Web applications. According to Google, by enabling and allowing developers to use the same tools that Google uses, they can not only build rich applications but also make the Web really fast. The Closure JavaScript compiler and library are used as the standard Javascript library for pretty much any large, public Web application that Google is serving today, including some of its most popular Web applications, including Gmail, Google Docs and Google Maps. Google has also released Closure Templates which are designed to automate the dynamic creation of HTML. The announcement comes a few months after Google released and open sourced the NX server."

7 of 158 comments (clear)

  1. Closure/Clojure/closures by John+Whitley · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Good grief. Homophone insanity. We've got Clojure doing interesting things in the language and concurrency space. Block support in C/Objective-C reinjecting "closures" into everyone's vocabulary. And now Google jumps in with "Closure" just to make sure that no one has any idea what anyone else is talking about...

  2. Re:My gawd by prozaker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    its either javascript, flash or silverlight.

  3. Re:My gawd by Post-O-Matron · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Let me guess: you're a non-web developer? A.K.A a "real" developer.

    Well, in the current web world saying "why use Javascript??" is about a smart question as asking "Why use C??" or "Why use Java??" in the desktop world.

    It may have 10,000 flaws in it, but that's the de-facto standard ATM.

    Furthermore, unlike the desktop realm were you install your dependencies with an installer, in the web you have to wait 5 years for the crap old technologies to drain out after the new better one comes out.

    None of us would use Javascript if we had a choice, but we don't. So toolkits like JQuery or this release by Google are life savers.

  4. "The" NX server? I don't think so. by Lemming+Mark · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "The announcement comes a few months after Google released and open sourced the NX server."

    That's a bit confused... it may just be a typo but it's resulted in a misleading statement. Google released *their* NX server as open source. Previously the FreeNX project had independently created an open source NX server, using libraries provided by NoMachine (inventor of the NX protocol) who provide all of the clever compression stuff from their server as open source libraries.

    The summary makes it sound like Google were solely responsible for the existence of an open source NX server, whereas actually I'd say they're "standing on the shoulders of giants (NoMachine), next to some other dude who was already up there (FreeNX)"

  5. Re:Embracing and extending by nurb432 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It also kills off older hardware that was perfectly fine for rendering server side processing, but will choke with this move back to client side ( which personally, i think is the wrong direction, but that is a different discussion )

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  6. Re:My gawd by Mr.+DOS · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why is this modded funny? Apparently someone's forgotten that IE6 was released in August 2001; it's taken just over eight years for its market share to be superseded by another browser, and it's still firmly entrenched in some corporate environments.

          --- Mr. DOS

  7. Re:It's also faster than Python by Dragonslicer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's also faster than Python And Ruby, PHP and Perl.

    Languages can't be faster or slower than other languages, since a language is just a syntax specification. Compilers, interpreters, and other runtime environments are what you would compare for speed. In the case of JavaScript, you have several competing implementations (at least 4 or 5 that are well known, plus many others that aren't well known), and speed is probably the only significant selling point in any of them. With the rest of the languages you list, there's really only one commonly used implementation of each, and it's written by the same group that's responsible for the language specification, so there tends to be less focus on speed of the interpreter and more focus on adding new features to the language itself.