"So, i think it is more a lack of vision, than technical/security issues."
There might not have been a technical vision in the www but there is I think a political statement which is that the information must be open. Papers like "The Rule of Least Power" [1] make it very clear. This is, in my opinion, the essence of the web and companies like Google are built on it. I think we're moving away today from this vision with technologies like HTML5/JavaScript to respond to the application model of the iPhone/iPad (more "business friendly"). I don't know if it will allow us to keep this open philosophy or not. - Benoit [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/leastPower.html On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 11:20 AM, Igor Stasenko <siguc...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > _______________________________________________ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
