On 25 July 2011 19:01, Dethe Elza <de...@livingcode.org> wrote: > > On 2011-07-25, at 9:25 AM, Igor Stasenko wrote: > >> But don't you see a problem: >> it evolving from simple 'kiddie' scripting language into a full >> fledged system. > > First off, JS was done in a hurry, but by Brendan Eich who was hired by > Netscape because he had implemented languages before and knew something about > what he was doing (and could work fast). JS itself had a marketing > requirement to be have C-like syntax (curly braces), but the language itself > was influenced more by Self and Lisp than any of the C lineage. > > And the JS we use today has been evolving (what's wrong with evolving?) since > 1995. What is in browsers today was not designed in 10 days, it has been > beaten through the wringer of day to day use, standardization processes, and > deployment in an extremely wide range of environments. That doesn't make it > perfect, and I'm not saying it doesn't have it's warts (it does), but to > disparage it as "kiddie scripting" reeks to me of trolling, not discussion. >
There was no intent of any disrespect or disparage. For me, its a fact that the original implementation were started (as many other popular projects) in a form of kiddie scripting and then evolved into something bigger/better. After all, a starting point defines the way you go. >> It is of course a good direction and i welcome it. But how different >> our systems would be, if guys who started it 20 years back would think >> a bit about future? > > I don't think we would even be having this discussion if they didn't think > about the future, and I think they've spent the intervening years continuing > to think about (and implement) the future. > >> Why all those "emerging" technologies is just reproducing the same >> which were available for desktop apps for years? > > Security, for one. Browsers (and distributed systems generally) are a hostile > environment and the ability to run arbitrary code on a user's machine has to > be tempered by not allowing rogue code to erase their files or install a > virus. In the meantime, desktops have also become distributed systems, and > browser technology is migrating into the OS. That's not an accident. Yeah.. And the only difference i see today in systems is before running a downloaded executable a system asking "are you sure you want to run something downloaded from internet?". So, we're still not there. Our systems are still not as secure as we want them to be (otherwise why asking user such kind of questions?). :) >From today's perspective, how you would explain to people, why drawing on canvas (as in HTML5) are available only today but not starting from HTML1.0? As Julian said before in this thread, 20 years ago we had almost same requirements.. So, assuming that 20 years back we wanted to deliver dynamic content which draws things on screen, why it took 20 years to implement it? I think the only answer could be, that we're changed the view on what 'web content' are. While 20 years back it was mostly static content with simple markup text and couple of images, today it is completely different. So, i think it is more a lack of vision, than technical/security issues. > >> Doesn't it rings a bell that it is something fundamentally wrong with >> this technology? > > Well, I doubt we could name a technology there isn't something fundamentally > wrong with. I've been pushing Javascript as far as I could for more than a > decade now. Browsers (and JS) really were crap back then, no doubt about it. > But they are starting to become a decent foundation in the past couple of > years, with more improvements to come. And there is something to be said for > a safe language with first-class functions that is available anywhere a web > browser can run (and further). > Yes. But wait. Why if i want to run something on a web page it has to be a javascript? Is javascript an universal answer to every possible problems we have? I doubt it. Because now, i have to rewrite own applications in javascript, just because it is the "only" technology which allows you to reach your user base. Everyone jumps into wagon and follows a hype. Without even considering alternatives. And its a pity. So, it is good to hear about Google's NaCl. Maybe eventually it will free us from 20 years old shackles. > Anyhow, not going to spend more time defending JS. Just had to put in my > $0.02 CAD. > I wouldn't say that i hating it much. I just wanted to say that it a pity watching how painfully it evolving from beginning. World could spend own effort on something else over those 20 years :) > --Dethe > _______________________________________________ > fonc mailing list > fonc@vpri.org > http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc > -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig. _______________________________________________ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
