One advantage of weak typing and/or interpreting is that one part can still work even if there is a flaw in a library etc.
No, that is a horrible disadvantage. It's much better to just have everything fail during development then have to spent 5 hours each time uncovering a silent bug in the code base.
With compile/type-centric languages, one bad routine in one bad library among hundreds will prevent compilation even if a given user would never even use that lone bad element.
You mean the programmer would have to fix the code before shipping? Oh the horror!
Why should a bad part in library Z prevent me from using libraries A thru Y?
Except that wouldn't happen now, would it, because you already established that the interpretor would halt on an error. So in fact the code would be better then it possibly could be at present with the current setup.
Your argument boils down to "write crappy code and let the interpretor figure it out.", hence why javascript is slow and full of problems.
The browser is essentially a rendering machine which makes it trivially easy to show things and is largely machine independent. Instead of selling a huge monolithic program, companies can simply sell time on their servers to run their programs.
It's already been done. Zendesk, Basecamp, Get Staisfaction, all these "programs" require monthly subscriptions. Even the slashdot "program" has a subscription option.
That's a good thing. Not standardising it before anyone is using it means that can quickly change things if it's not working out. Otherwise you end up with javascript.
JavaScript is completely capable as a language. Just because idiots complain, doesn't mean it is terrible.
Meanwhile there is a huge movement behind making languages that compile down into javascript because the language is so horrible to code in.
The only annoyance is its inability to store binary data, resulting in the next best thing, Base64* encoding at 133% ~filesize per binary chunk, to be used.
and yet there is no standard way to base64 encode anything in firefox, chrome, opera and IE without rolling your own code which is REALLY slow.
Why did we settle on Base64?
because anything higher uses characters that can not be displayed in the browser properly in ascii form. This can potentially lead to data corruption, if you're using base64 in the url for things such as image, mp3,etc data where you put the base64 data directly into the tag or in an ajax post request.
JavaScript emerged out of a process focusing on appeasing the masses of web developers with features without much regard for how the end result would turn out.
I don't think web developers have had any say in the process until recently. It seems like more a situation where the browser makes have just thought "this'll make a cool feature" and stuck it in the browser.
There are plenty of issues, if you think there are none then you simply haven't done enough javascript coding.
The this object for a start doesn't always refer to the class you're in as it depends of what is calling it. The fact that a variable can be either null, undefined, etc which means you always need to annoyingly create large boilerplate if statements. The whole "var" keyword which gets complicated depending upon which scope you're in. All the backwards compatible crap that's been carried forward for a decade.
Well those are my pet peeves. Yes, you can work around all these problems, the point is you shouldn't have to.
because flash is one entity that exists on many browsers. It's one codebase, one implementation which means there is more gain from exploiting it then if there were multiple implementations in different browsers.
You sound like you don't know what you're talking about. Probably, you moved to write AJAX application from writing PHP or something and didn't even bother to learn JS better.
Look everybody, an elitist douchebag that thinks treating people as inferiors leads to a valid arguement. Let me guess, you you're a hipster that uses opera and ruby on rails exclusively while shitting on GPL because it's not as free as BSD..
1 - Chiropractor fixed your back therefore it works even though this is just one case and you're not a doctor 2 - There are many "bad chiropractors", a typical "No true Scotsman" logically fallacy
Yes, screw all those doctors with their evidence, it's obviously a real miracle! That makes more sense then you being duped out of painful desperation.
It's great that you're no longer in pain, but you really should not go around recommending quack medicine and wasting people's money, time and possibly ruining their health with woo woo science.
Depends on if anyone would ever consider changing the firmware. I'd say yes, it's free enough unless there was some good reason to ever change the firmware which there probably isn't.
Free isn't free if you have to buy something. You can attempt to reason anyway you want but you're simply wrong on this unless you can show me where I can legally get windows for free (that would be very beneficial to me).
Not only that, but the argument isn't even that you *can't* write something in a different language. It's that you *shouldn't* because it adds overhead.
Best possible case is that C# is optimised to be as fast a C. So what? It doesn't justify rewriting the whole OS in C# after years of getting it right in C because even if you have the speed of C with all the advantages of C#; re-implementing and causing bugs would write the whole thing off as a worthless endeavour.
This is all assuming you can get it as fast as C in the first place which although you could point to very small test cases it isn't ever going to be as fast overall and that's what matters. People will argue that computing power is greater so we got my cycles to waste, again what's the point when existing C implementations are already better at not wasting resources?
I don't know, maybe you not not understanding the concept of "woosh"? Or perhaps the fact that you disagree but have nothing to come back with but this?
Slashdot Mirror
No, that is a horrible disadvantage. It's much better to just have everything fail during development then have to spent 5 hours each time uncovering a silent bug in the code base.
You mean the programmer would have to fix the code before shipping? Oh the horror!
Except that wouldn't happen now, would it, because you already established that the interpretor would halt on an error. So in fact the code would be better then it possibly could be at present with the current setup.
Your argument boils down to "write crappy code and let the interpretor figure it out.", hence why javascript is slow and full of problems.
It's already been done. Zendesk, Basecamp, Get Staisfaction, all these "programs" require monthly subscriptions. Even the slashdot "program" has a subscription option.
That's a good thing. Not standardising it before anyone is using it means that can quickly change things if it's not working out. Otherwise you end up with javascript.
That's not really an issue. You can still open source stuff, keeping it in binary form means quicker download times.
Meanwhile there is a huge movement behind making languages that compile down into javascript because the language is so horrible to code in.
and yet there is no standard way to base64 encode anything in firefox, chrome, opera and IE without rolling your own code which is REALLY slow.
because anything higher uses characters that can not be displayed in the browser properly in ascii form. This can potentially lead to data corruption, if you're using base64 in the url for things such as image, mp3,etc data where you put the base64 data directly into the tag or in an ajax post request.
So my choice is either Oracle or Microsoft.. great...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scripting_language
I don't think web developers have had any say in the process until recently. It seems like more a situation where the browser makes have just thought "this'll make a cool feature" and stuck it in the browser.
There are plenty of issues, if you think there are none then you simply haven't done enough javascript coding.
The this object for a start doesn't always refer to the class you're in as it depends of what is calling it. The fact that a variable can be either null, undefined, etc which means you always need to annoyingly create large boilerplate if statements. The whole "var" keyword which gets complicated depending upon which scope you're in. All the backwards compatible crap that's been carried forward for a decade.
Well those are my pet peeves. Yes, you can work around all these problems, the point is you shouldn't have to.
because flash is one entity that exists on many browsers. It's one codebase, one implementation which means there is more gain from exploiting it then if there were multiple implementations in different browsers.
Look everybody, an elitist douchebag that thinks treating people as inferiors leads to a valid arguement. Let me guess, you you're a hipster that uses opera and ruby on rails exclusively while shitting on GPL because it's not as free as BSD..
Crawl back to your cave neckbeard.
That's totally bullshit. You can the same satisfaction from helping contribute to something you enjoy and want to promote.
So lets review:
1 - Chiropractor fixed your back therefore it works even though this is just one case and you're not a doctor
2 - There are many "bad chiropractors", a typical "No true Scotsman" logically fallacy
Yes, screw all those doctors with their evidence, it's obviously a real miracle! That makes more sense then you being duped out of painful desperation.
It's great that you're no longer in pain, but you really should not go around recommending quack medicine and wasting people's money, time and possibly ruining their health with woo woo science.
It has been proven to be bullshit, you're experiencing the placebo effect.
You can move your stuff over using this app.. http://move2picasa.com/
Not the point you were making but I figured someone would like this.
Depends on if anyone would ever consider changing the firmware. I'd say yes, it's free enough unless there was some good reason to ever change the firmware which there probably isn't.
How can it be a troll and the guy not know anything at the same time..
You contradict yourself then because you specifically mention you can get it for free.
There is no trialware packaged free version of home premium.
Free isn't free if you have to buy something. You can attempt to reason anyway you want but you're simply wrong on this unless you can show me where I can legally get windows for free (that would be very beneficial to me).
It's not free if you have to buy a PC that you don't need to get an OS for the PC you already have.
Then that's not free is it.
Not only that, but the argument isn't even that you *can't* write something in a different language. It's that you *shouldn't* because it adds overhead.
Best possible case is that C# is optimised to be as fast a C. So what? It doesn't justify rewriting the whole OS in C# after years of getting it right in C because even if you have the speed of C with all the advantages of C#; re-implementing and causing bugs would write the whole thing off as a worthless endeavour.
This is all assuming you can get it as fast as C in the first place which although you could point to very small test cases it isn't ever going to be as fast overall and that's what matters. People will argue that computing power is greater so we got my cycles to waste, again what's the point when existing C implementations are already better at not wasting resources?
The cost is hidden from the average consumer. You're just making statements with nothing to back them up.
Interesting could you provide instructions on how I can get 64bit windows home premium for free then?
I don't know, maybe you not not understanding the concept of "woosh"? Or perhaps the fact that you disagree but have nothing to come back with but this?