On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 12:31 PM, opinali <[email protected]> wrote: > Unfortunately, JavaScript (plus its DOM interface with the outside > world) is a pretty poor choice for such UVM role.
Yeah, everybody complains about the DOM. I'm not suggesting coding to that though. You really have to experience a library like jQuery to appreciate how much better it is than coding to the DOM. > First, with its dynamic typing, prototype-based structure, it's one of > the hardest languages to optimize and even next-gen JITs like V8/TM/ > Nitro will not compete with Java (even with HotSpot Client) any time > soon (or with Silverlight's CLR, for that matter). JS apps only look > fast when they are thin layers over non-JS services like DOM, WebGL, > canvas/video/audio support, etc. or when the network is the bottleneck > (gmail, maps, etc.) so the user accepts delays as something natural. > Any app that depends on a large amount of JS code, or contains > complex, CPU-bound JS algorithms, will be a fiasco for many years to > come. In the old times we'd just say "yeah whatever, let's just wait > the next couple Moore's Law doublings of CPU speed", but these are the > new times and CPUs are not getting faster in any significant speed, so > until somebody comes up with a magic parallelization framework, > language speed will matter a lot. What I'm suggesting is coding only the user interface in JavaScript. All other code can be in the language of your choosing and run on the server. The user interface code can easily access it with RESTful requests. > Second, JS/web apps still lacks very important features. While the > next round of progressive-rock-browsers will implement such things as > accelerated 3D, I'm still waiting for such simple delicacies as > support for custom right-button menus, drag&drop, clipboard > integration, etc. There's also the hard reality of MSIE lagging as > much as they can get away with, to support these latest enhancements, > because Microsofts agenda with Silverlight competes radically with the > pure-web RIA. Now MS is talking IE9 which should have a JIT-compiled > JS VM with decent performance, plus some HTML5 support. But this only > means that IE9, in late 2010 or 2011, will be as good as the state-of- > the-art of 2008 (at best). And many corps are still dragging their > feet with IE6; it's clear to me that pushing a plugin (that is > compatible with old IEs) is less hard than pushing the latest > browsers. I'm sure we'll have cool web interface capabilities in the future. I'm just addressing developing web applications for the browsers we have today. I know you can create impressive web interfaces today with Flex and Silverlight. My point is that those aren't necessary for many web UIs. jQuery can accomplish much of what they do. > On 30 nov, 10:56, Casper Bang <[email protected]> wrote: >> People are no longer programming directly in JavaScript though, but >> abstractions on top a la jQuery and GWT which shields the developer >> from most of the ugliness. Google has proven time and again how they >> perceive JavaScript as nothing less than a universal machine layer >> opening the door for universal access (computers, phones, picture >> frames etc.). I think Sun missed that opportunity when NetScape made >> JavaScript the de-facto language over Java. >> >> /Casper >> >> On Nov 30, 1:04 pm, Simon Brocklehurst <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > On Nov 30, 1:27 am, Josh McDonald <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > > 2) Stop with the applet. Seriously. The browser plugin war is over, Adobe >> > > won. Years ago. And before Java 7 is ready and modularised, Google will >> > > have >> > > gotten V8 and (Canvas||a replacement for Canvas) up to par. It's just >> > > more >> > > important to them than Java 7 and FX are to Sun (which is not how it >> > > should >> > > be IMO), they have more money, and they've built a nest of hackers where >> > > even @dhanji isn't (always) the smartest guy in the room. The JVM is >> > > *awesome*, but Tamarin is good enough for the browser. >> >> > That's an interesting suggestion. You might be right that this war is >> > already lost. Personally, I hope not - I think JavaScript is a poor >> > choice of language for building sophisticated browser-based >> > applications. *If* it is lost, though, the consequences are serious, >> > because it will restrict every non-browser RIA platform to a pretty >> > small niche. That's because close to 100% of people have already >> > decided they want 80% of the computer systems they access via a >> > desktop computer to run inside a browser, > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "The Java Posse" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en. > > > -- R. Mark Volkmann Object Computing, Inc. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
