My memory is a bit fuzzy, but I remember something about MS shifting their focus from the soon-to-be-dead web to the nebulous "x internet". I had always assumed that was the reason why they essentially stopped development on IE.
I like your explanation better as there is a delicious irony in the fact that their innovations contributed greatly to the continued success of the web and the development of the web as an application platform.
I keep hearing this, but it doesn't actually seem to be a problem in the real world -- either with javascript or any other language with dynamic typing.
If younlearned JavaScript in 17minutes you likely use less than 17% of its features.
You're right about that. A big part of the "hate" seems to come from people unwilling to learn the language. I assume because they assume they already know it, due to it's familiar syntax.
I'd argue that it's rather easy to learn. Easier than, for example, Java or C# for a beginner. Prototypal OO is much simpler and more "powerful" than Classical OO. Half the problems people new to JS suffer seems to come from dragging all that classical baggage with them. I suspect it's why so many people seem to have trouble with the 'this' keyword.
is just passing fad, it does not have the mature libraries of other languages
Considering how new it is on the server, I'm not surprised. It may very well be a passing fad, a point to which I'm inclined to agree, but that's not one of the reasons why.
It's a fine language. The two biggest problems, which have caused most of the confusion, can easily be ignored: new and constructor functions. (They're why every half-wit on Slashdot thinks that 'this' is 'broken' or 'confusing'.) Avoid those while you're learning and you'll find a surprisingly sophisticated language. You'll wonder how you ever put up with Java and C#.
You'll want to learn them later, of course. But only because you'll see them inexplicably used in other people's code.
Slashdot Mirror
All in all it was a pretty good flogging, users *and* developers.
Browser detection was always a bad idea. It took a while, and a lot of beating, but even half-wits like Resig realized this years ago.
My memory is a bit fuzzy, but I remember something about MS shifting their focus from the soon-to-be-dead web to the nebulous "x internet". I had always assumed that was the reason why they essentially stopped development on IE.
I like your explanation better as there is a delicious irony in the fact that their innovations contributed greatly to the continued success of the web and the development of the web as an application platform.
Used all-over?
Wait, what? I was unaware there was a distinction between "nerd" and "geek". Can I get a few nerds to geek out here and argue over their definitions?
It's even better with the new DLC.
I keep hearing this, but it doesn't actually seem to be a problem in the real world -- either with javascript or any other language with dynamic typing.
If younlearned JavaScript in 17minutes you likely use less than 17% of its features.
You're right about that. A big part of the "hate" seems to come from people unwilling to learn the language. I assume because they assume they already know it, due to it's familiar syntax.
I'd argue that it's rather easy to learn. Easier than, for example, Java or C# for a beginner. Prototypal OO is much simpler and more "powerful" than Classical OO. Half the problems people new to JS suffer seems to come from dragging all that classical baggage with them. I suspect it's why so many people seem to have trouble with the 'this' keyword.
is just passing fad, it does not have the mature libraries of other languages
Considering how new it is on the server, I'm not surprised. It may very well be a passing fad, a point to which I'm inclined to agree, but that's not one of the reasons why.
It's a fine language. The two biggest problems, which have caused most of the confusion, can easily be ignored: new and constructor functions. (They're why every half-wit on Slashdot thinks that 'this' is 'broken' or 'confusing'.) Avoid those while you're learning and you'll find a surprisingly sophisticated language. You'll wonder how you ever put up with Java and C#.
You'll want to learn them later, of course. But only because you'll see them inexplicably used in other people's code.
It's not exactly new.
Hell, this has been around so long I'll bet there are kids who think it's classic.
Lol. You should try actually learning the language. You'll be surprised.
Take a look at FireFox OS. You'll be very surprised.
The science is settled.
I don't know what that can possibly mean. Science, last time I checked, does not work that way.
When did that happen?
Last time I checked, they caved to public pressure. Their mission hasn't changed at all.
It's Slashdot. Logic and reason clearly have no place here.
Every single person outside of Mozilla, you say?
Universally hated, you say?
Not much of a thinker, are you?
Oh, wow! That's FUNNY! I can't stop LAUGHING!
Yeah, Mozilla sure does make frequent updates to their browser! HILARIOUS!
Nothing tickles the ol' ribs more than regular software updates!
Experts, yes. But NOT experts in topics they often discuss.
I guess critical thinking only applies when you disagree with someone, eh?
They know 1 thing, apply it to things outside of their field and make nonsense statements.
Yes!
Now, if we could just get people to recognize this obvious point with folks like Dawkins and Harris, we'd see less nonsense on Slashdot.
It's pronounced "Hey-Zeus"
I assume that the key bit here is "at this frequency".
Surely, there's a physicist around who can elaborate on that.
Where did you learn science? A blog written by a home-schooled creationist?
The bumper-sticker version: An hypothesis is a testable prediction. A theory is a predictive model.
One does not graduate in to the other. A theory is a theory from the beginning.
You're likely just confused by the question of what makes a theory a scientific theory. For that, I'll direct you to Karl Popper.
The ones which remain and have not yet been disproven by evidence become theories.
Wow, not even close.
Nice notes, but to doesn't really answer the question, does it?
On faster, we'll need some benchmarks. On "more powerful", well, I'll leave that alone. I agree that it looks safer, though.
My mistake. Thanks.