Slashdot Mirror
Trying To Bust JavaScript Out of the Browser
eldavojohn writes "If you think JavaScript is a crime against humanity, you might want to skip this article, because Ars is reporting on efforts to take JavaScript to the next level. With the new ECMAScript 5 draft proposal, the article points out a lot of positive things that have happened in the world of JavaScript. The article does a good job of citing some of the major problems with JavaScript and how a reborn library called CommonJS (formerly ServerJS) is addressing each of those problems. No one can deny JavaScript's usefulness on the front end of the web, but if you're a developer do you support the efforts to move it beyond that?"
Perhaps it's a great language, but it reduced modern Core i7 computers to performance of a 486, negating 15 years of computing revolution. Inability to perform CPU-intensive computations due to these dynamic types of yours, lack of threading or any other explicit or implicit parallelism support, no library facilities to modern 2D/3D graphics libraries. Javascript is a nice experimental language like so many others but it shouldn't be running 90% of mission-critical applications.
JavaScript uses a different type of object than you're used to. JavaScript uses prototype-based objects whereas most other languages use class-based objects. I've seen a lot of work put into developing "class-like" objects in JavaScript and I've wondered why they just didn't learn to write code using prototypes instead.
I void warranties.
I'm not sure why anyone would want JavaScript anywhere else. I believe that the only reason why JavaScript is "popular" in the first place is because it is the only option available for client-side processing on the web.
A lot of the pain of JS, like its inconsistent experience across browsers, can't really be held against it. Each browser has to implement JS according to its own interpretation of the standard, virtually guaranteeing a non-consistent experience across the board. I understand that. But what truly kills JavaScript for me is the lack of development tools and a solid reference. Debugging JS with an alert window is a horrible experience.
Again, why anyone would want this stuff everywhere is beyond me. I was shocked a long time ago when Palm Pre decided it was a good idea to use JavaScript for app development. Shocked I tell you. And look where that went. Like I said, the only reason I would consider JS "popular" on the web is because there is no other way to do client-side processing. It's literally our only choice (VBScript doesn't count).
I'd instead say that Javascript is a frustrating language that's gotten too much rep. The fact that people migrate towards 3'rd party libraries to standardize simple programming operations (like jQuery / GWT) is a testament to how bad it's legacy has gotten - when trying to do 'real' work.
jQuery (prototype, mootools, etc) solves shitty DOM implementations, not shitty Javascript implementations. In fact, I don't think jQuery addresses a single "lack" in Javascript-- I could be mistaken-- virtually everything, if not everything, it does is fixing DOM's bad design and browser's inconsistent implementation of it.
This is why Javascript gets a bad rap: pair it with DOM, and *any* language would look awful, because DOM is awful.
Comment of the year
JavaScript is a Self dialect with ugly syntax, a broken model for unboxed numeric values, monumentally broken semantics for closure evaluation, and no sensible second-chance dispatch mechanism. Oh, and all current JavaScript implementations are slower than the Self VM from a decade ago.
Apart from that, it's a great language.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
It's a tolerable front end language for browsers. It's not as flexible or as fast as C++, but here's a newsflash to the "I'm living in Mom's basement crowd." It doesn't have to be.
It can suck up resources and not be especially fast and not be able to manipulate pointers or be much good for creating new classes and....
(sing it with me now) IT DOESN'T MATTER AND 99.99% OF WEB DEVELOPERS DON'T CARE.
Not all languages are C++, or Ruby, or Java or anything. Nor should they be. Use the right tool for the right job.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
I actually wish JavaScript and other client-side browser scripting would be done away with completely,
Why?
JS is not a particularly 'good' language.
People who say this very often don't know Javascript well at all. It's Lisp in C's clothing. It's actually a surprisingly elegant language -- it has a few warts, but they are almost certainly not what you're thinking of.
Google Douglas Crockford.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
A-friggin-men. JavaScript is one of the few popular languages with first-class functions. How many JS-bashers have actually written something more than document.write() rubbish?
Mod parent up. Javascript, or ECMAscript gets a bad rap because a lot of code-pounders don't really know how to use it beyond defining a few c-style functions. It's a fairly powerful language once you understand the grammar. IE6 shoulders most of the blame for fucking it up - things that should work but need a bunch of ridiculous if(ie) incantations chase away most programmers from understanding the fundamentals of the language better. Once you realize that it's *even more* object oriented than Java(sun) then you begin to understand.
It's a poor Lisp in C's clothing. Give me LET already!
JavaScript uses a different type of object than you're used to. JavaScript uses prototype-based objects whereas most other languages use class-based objects. I've seen a lot of work put into developing "class-like" objects in JavaScript and I've wondered why they just didn't learn to write code using prototypes instead.
Too educated to learn.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
it's just sometimes, it's a resource hog.
A bad workman always blames his tools
When you are given a screw driver to drive a nail, blaming the tool makes sense!
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
You mean the Douglas Crockford that wrote http://www.crockford.com/javascript/private.html?
When I talk about an object oriented programming language I'm referring to a language that allows you to use the concepts of OOP in a *natural* and *homogeneous* way. I don't want to write a library and helper methods to write an OO program, I want to use the language.
It's OK if it doesn't has classes, and therefore inheritance does not have a place in Javascript, just stop trying to force it to be something that it was not meant to be (that is a general purpose language to write medium to large scale applications).
Santiago
I tend to go by the thickness of Crockford's book, vs the thickness of any "Complete Javascript" book when determining how much "good stuff" the language has.
I believe there are two reasons for this:
1. Crockford's writing is concise and to the point. It assumes prior programming knowledge.
2. Crockford's book does not concern itself with the DOM
So I believe a good chunk of the extra stuff in the fatter books is "here's what a loop is", "here's what if() does", and a bigger chunk yet is about HTML and CSS.
The javascript hate probably isn't coming from people that have done web development.
It's probably coming from people that have done web browsing.
How about those demos where Google was demonstrating V8, one of the "fastest" JS implementations available, which DOES use JIT to native machine code? They were PROUD to demo like a few hundred bouncing balls on a modern computer at not even 60 fps.
Written in C you could write an app to draw and compute the motion of tens of thousands of fucking balls at 60 fps on a modern computer.
Within 2 orders of magnitude is not "close" to C performance. Within 2 orders of magnitude is not "acceptable" performance.
How do you hide or move a DOM object in real time with css? For example how do you do this with css (jquery example)
$("p").click(function () { $("p").fadeOut("slow"); });
I'm not a javascript fan, but I have to use it daily for the tasks given to me.
Congratulations, you've just loaded 50-300kb of javascript (depending on your jQuery version) to fade out an element.
The "fading slowly" part is the ONLY bit that can't be accomplished with CSS. Hiding and moving is trivial, even cross-browser. Trust me.
I'm the lead programmer for a Fortune 300 site, and we're handed third-party content forced onto us by Marketing, et al, that uses Jquery, et al, to accomplish the SIMPLEST of tasks. I have yet to see something implemented in jQuery that would require more than 20 lines of javascript.
jQuery is NOT for programmers, it's for tools who think they're coding when they lay out HTML.
Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur...
"Force shits upon Reason's back." - Poor Richard's Almanac