Comments on: “Ajax” Forever?

By: dhwang

dhwang — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 19:46:53 +0000

hm.. You guys are on “Ajax”ian and leaving comment on how AJAX will fade/disappear? why bother ? :)

By: navot

navot — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 11:49:07 +0000

I would like to draw your attention to another alternative which is a paradigm shift for AJAX front ends. One should be aware that I am not, and do not pretend to be objective, never the less I believe that one can judge for himself. Visual WebGui is an open source rapid application development framework for graphic user interfaces of IT web applications. VWG replaces the obsolete paradigms of ASP.NET in both design-time and run-time which were designed for developing sites, with WinForms methodologies, which were designed for developing applications. Thus enabling designer that was designed for application interfaces (WinForms designer) instead of a word documents (ASP.NET designer). This provides the developer with an extremely efficient way to design interfaces using drag and drop instead of hand coding HTML Worth a look at http://www.visualwebgui.com.

By: Joeri

Joeri — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 10:00:28 +0000

Outside of the web dev community it’s difficult to get people to even understand the difference between java and javascript. Ajax is a meaningless term for them that pretty much equals the meaninglessness of web 2.0.

How I’ve viewed the issue is that web 2.0 denotes sites that try to empower users by offering community tools, and that ajax denotes web app construction technologies that improve responsiveness and gui richness.

By: Justin L

Justin L — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 08:51:56 +0000

I think I’m going to go flash.

By: HG

HG — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 06:35:39 +0000

Javascript is standardized, so it won’t fall into the proprietary manipulations we see from Microsoft.

As for Apple marketing. Jobs has chosen well to use the term Web 2.0, it resonates well with the average Joe. But at Apple there’s a major push toward Javascript/XML-RPC development (aka Ajax). Dojo and Prototype developers made presentations at well attended sessions at WWDC this year and there are going to be some nice AJAX surprises in Leopard.

By: Muhammad Ali

Muhammad Ali — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 04:44:20 +0000

IMHO, term AJAX will fade with the passage of time, but it’ll remain there thats pretty much sure. Web 2.0 happens to be a more generic term, because it is supposed to be a more generic one. Web 2.0 is about the change of idea/concept of building/perceiving web application (i.e. giving web apps a look n feel n *behavior* like desktop apps). And you can do so by using any technology. However, AJAX restricts the technology to be in JavaScript only whereas Web 2.0 don’t (more generic term).

By: Jordan

Jordan — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 01:30:04 +0000

If your job posting includes CSS+JavaScript+HTML than you can replace it with AJAX which includes all of them. Just like how LAMP represents Linux+Apache+etc.

By: Dmitry Monin

Dmitry Monin — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 20:36:25 +0000

I hope it’s not for the end of my life (world should have a progress).
Javascript is pretty simple and has number of speed and security problems (in compare with desktop applications).
I think it was a big step in web-dev to normalize javascript dom-event to all browsers with js-frameworks and innovate ajax as technology. It gave possibility to write much more faster applications and showed the world (and microsoft) that it is possible to use http for something more than just for static web-pages.
but dont forget, javascript + html were designed to display static webpages. why not to create technology to display dynamic web applications?
I think silverlight(or maybe adobe air) has the same problem as javascript and css ten years ago: it is not much client machines, which have support for that technology.

By: Mark Holton

Mark Holton — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 20:18:25 +0000

@Scott… are you serious? So you think people will abandon these asynchronous practices? And/or JavaScript development in the browser? Or will they all move to Flex/Flash/Silverlight? …I would disagree with all three of those wholeheartedly (and I happen to really like Flex). JS isn’t going anywhere, neither are browser standards (even if MSFT abandons them). It would be nice to see standards progress a little faster, but they sure aren’t going to go away. These techniques have generated enthusiasm because they present a more responsive web. I don’t see that changing for the worse, but instead continuing to evolve for the better. …call me an optimist

By: Scott

Scott — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 19:46:40 +0000

reminds me of the term “NOS”

remember how that took off after the fast and the furious movie came out

i bet AJAX will follow the same path

By: Mark Holton

Mark Holton — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 19:32:33 +0000

…wow, Alex and Nate… you guys sound depressed! Unplug and cheer up, guys, this stuff is fun :) …imho, Ajax is here to stay in whatever name it takes on — I define Ajax as: using browser native technologies (JavaScript esp) to make asynchronous requests && manipulate the DOM. Ajax = modern DHTML

By: Nate Grover

Nate Grover — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 19:14:54 +0000

Alex nailed it.

“Ajax” is not a sustainable platform. It will be replaced and the term will disappear. But… it might take a few years.

Nate

By: Alex Russell

Alex Russell — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 17:39:16 +0000

Any trend that can’t continue won’t.

By: Eric

Eric — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 16:58:48 +0000

For me, work that relies on or takes advantage of an XHR may be referred to as AJAX. I generally try not to use the the term unless referring to asynchronous JavaScipt and XML – the words from which the acronym AJAX is derived. Asynchronous JavaScript pretty much means XHR, XmlHttpRequest, which implies XML on some level.

Regarding Ajax or AJAX, it’s pretty common to use upper case with acronyms, no?

I’m surprised how many said something to the effect that “many don’t know what AJAX is or stands for”. Of course, this is the case when I talk with folks who aren’t web devs but if they are, most I come across are quite familiar with AJAX. If they’re not web devs then I refer to websites having a certain AJAXiness with terms similar to those used by zero0x above. I’ll also often refer to a site driven by AJAX techniques as a web application that responds like a desktop application.

By: Scott Schiller

Scott Schiller — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 16:25:27 +0000

I’ll say HTML/CSS/JavaScript, just JavaScript, or “DHTML” even. It’s easier to infer Ajax or “Web 2.0″ and people will smile and nod, though you can pretty sure they don’t know -specifically- what aspect you work on at that point. ;)

My “DHTML Arkanoid” project from 2002 would be labeled “Ajax” Arkanoid these days (it has been called that by some blogs, in fact), despite that there was no XHR involved until quite recently (Safari wouldn’t accept dynamic create/append of script nodes, or so it seemed.) :)

Regardless, mis-labeling/categorization of the webdev job is probably tied to the fact that it’s still an evolving position, covers a wide variety of skills and attracts a number of people from different backgrounds.

By: Paul Bakaus

Paul Bakaus — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 15:31:04 +0000

About 99% of the people I’ve talked with have no idea what ajax stands for. They always mean ‘anything javascript based’.
I find the fact stupid that many people refer to me as ajax specialist. I’d much rather be called JavaScript specialist (well, that’s what I really am).
So when I talk about JavaScript, I also use the word JavaScript. Everything that’s going on dynamically on your webpages is JavaScript. Period. (…ah well, and VBScript, but that’s an exotic one :) )

By: Andy Kant

Andy Kant — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 15:22:40 +0000

I’ve started wrapping all high-end clientside experience into the Ajax hat. Web 2.0 sounds unprofessional and generalized. Usually if you’ve been using Ajax, then you also have experience doing JS/CSS/DOM too (unless of course you use one of those auto-JS generators like GWT in which case you’re just a poser and shouldn’t put Ajax on a resume ;-).

By: Frank Thuerigen

Frank Thuerigen — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 15:13:07 +0000

In my case fullAJAX to indicate sheer JS Programming… I was lacking a better term to describe it. I think “AJAX” rings the right bell, while “Web 2.0″ tends to be regarded as an overaged marketing term. I think AJAX has a more professional sound.

By: Thomas Hansen

Thomas Hansen — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 13:12:20 +0000

RIA is a superset of Ajax meaning Rich Internet Applications
Ajax (NOT AJAX) means Asynchronous Javascript And XML(HTTPRequest)

I think the X meaning XML is just plain WRONG btw, I think it’s more of an XMLHTTPRequest thing… ;)

Just my 2cents…

By: zero0x

zero0x — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 13:04:18 +0000

i just call it ‘interactive pages’, or ‘something better than webpages’, sometimes ‘web2.0′ – lot of people have no idea what is ajax.. :(