"retard" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]... > Tue, 20 Apr 2010 21:38:57 -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote: > >> "Nick Sabalausky" <[email protected]> wrote in message >> news:[email protected]... >>> "Justin Johansson" <[email protected]> wrote in message >>> news:[email protected]... >>>> >>>> my current thinking seems to be aligning with others that JavaScript >>>> should be seen as the new "binary", albeit in text form, that HLLs >>>> should be compiling down to for "webapp" development. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> I believe *very* strongly in using a REAL language that then gets >>> compiled down to worthless crap like PHP, ActionScript, etc., whenever >>> such worthless crap platforms are necessary. Which is, of course, >>> necessary FAR too often when you do web development, as I do. >>> >>> >> Of course, I also believe very strongly that if a language or platform >> is crap (browser-JavaScript), then the *real* correct solution is to fix >> or replace it rather than just paint over it with another layer. But, >> hey! That's not how we do things here in the internet technology world! >> Just slap on another half-baked design to cover up last year's >> half-baked design! Repeat ad infinitum. (Am I the only one that learned >> anything from the old "There was an old lady who swallowed a..." nursery >> rhyme?). > > The problem is, even if you come up with a superior alternative, there's > a lots of politics in the way. Some (all?) enterprises expect to make > profits from their old technology and push it further in all possible > ways. It would take years or decades to replace anything without a killer > application or two. >
If some idiot wants to cling onto a piece of crap tech that never should have taken off to begin with, I see no good reason to help enable them by staying on the bandwagon. > They only recently started to improve Javascript performance. It's not > that bad actually. And the code can be distributed in cross-platform way > across the network. They have low loading times unlike applets - a big > win. E.g. I've started to use google docs, the UI is nice and doesn't > crash unlike buggy native office applications. For anything non-trivial, JS loading times are terrible. Better than applets, yes, but compared to non-JS sites? Yes, it's *that* bad. And by "that" bad, I mean bad enough to qualify as a bad approach. And even if you really did need client-scripting (and the vast majority of the time, you don't), there are better ways to distribute cross-platform code across a network. ------------------------------- Not sent from an iPhone.
