Comments on: Comparing the evolution of Java and JavaScript http://ajaxian.com/archives/comparing-the-evolution-of-java-and-javascript Cleaning up the web with Ajax Thu, 17 May 2012 07:43:39 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Brendan Eich http://ajaxian.com/archives/comparing-the-evolution-of-java-and-javascript/comment-page-1#comment-260232 Brendan Eich Fri, 21 Dec 2007 00:41:07 +0000 http://ajaxian.com/?p=3129#comment-260232 In case it wasn't clear, my point about IE alert was not that it is a good example of classes -- but it does show they intrude into JS already. There are great examples where you do want a hardened little instance that can be efficiently created by the millions, can't be tampered with at all, can be used as an unforgeable capability, etc. Classes as conceived in JS2 have their uses. /be In case it wasn’t clear, my point about IE alert was not that it is a good example of classes — but it does show they intrude into JS already. There are great examples where you do want a hardened little instance that can be efficiently created by the millions, can’t be tampered with at all, can be used as an unforgeable capability, etc. Classes as conceived in JS2 have their uses.

/be

]]> By: Brendan Eich http://ajaxian.com/archives/comparing-the-evolution-of-java-and-javascript/comment-page-1#comment-260231 Brendan Eich Thu, 20 Dec 2007 23:35:26 +0000 http://ajaxian.com/?p=3129#comment-260231 Of course JS is not turning into Java, Joe spoke to that. Here's the thing about your very example: alert is a function object, right? Wrong, in IE -- it's a "host object", an instance of a "class" you can't make or extend. It has no apply or call method delegated to Function.prototype. Give the <a href="http://www.ecmascript.org/es4/spec/evolutionary-programming-tutorial.pdf" rel="nofollow">ES4 evolutionary programming tutorial</a> a read if you haven't yet. Nothing like Java -- way better ;-). /be Of course JS is not turning into Java, Joe spoke to that.

Here’s the thing about your very example: alert is a function object, right? Wrong, in IE — it’s a “host object”, an instance of a “class” you can’t make or extend. It has no apply or call method delegated to Function.prototype.

Give the ES4 evolutionary programming tutorial a read if you haven’t yet. Nothing like Java — way better ;-).

/be

]]> By: McLars http://ajaxian.com/archives/comparing-the-evolution-of-java-and-javascript/comment-page-1#comment-260211 McLars Thu, 20 Dec 2007 15:54:39 +0000 http://ajaxian.com/?p=3129#comment-260211 I agree that browser disparities (deficiencies?) should not halt JS evolution. The question is in which direction JS should be evolving, more complex or simpler. I think the recent explosion in frameworks/libraries indicates that people want simpler interfaces. Simple does not exclude greater power. For example, when you can select a whole group of elements with just a $() or $$() statement, that saves a ton of work and makes the code easiert to read and maintain. I'm all for making that sort of power native to JS. I'm just against making it harder to learn and use day-to-day. My worst nightmare would be requiring people to follow a complicated class structure just to pop up an alert. Again, there are plenty of industrial-strength, fully-compiled languages out there. Maybe more work needs to be done to get those implemented better on the browser. But JS is the only thing we have for low-level, simple scripting tasks. You can make it more powerful, yes, but please don't turn it into Java. I agree that browser disparities (deficiencies?) should not halt JS evolution. The question is in which direction JS should be evolving, more complex or simpler. I think the recent explosion in frameworks/libraries indicates that people want simpler interfaces. Simple does not exclude greater power. For example, when you can select a whole group of elements with just a $() or $$() statement, that saves a ton of work and makes the code easiert to read and maintain. I’m all for making that sort of power native to JS. I’m just against making it harder to learn and use day-to-day. My worst nightmare would be requiring people to follow a complicated class structure just to pop up an alert. Again, there are plenty of industrial-strength, fully-compiled languages out there. Maybe more work needs to be done to get those implemented better on the browser. But JS is the only thing we have for low-level, simple scripting tasks. You can make it more powerful, yes, but please don’t turn it into Java.

]]> By: Brendan Eich http://ajaxian.com/archives/comparing-the-evolution-of-java-and-javascript/comment-page-1#comment-260189 Brendan Eich Thu, 20 Dec 2007 00:37:06 +0000 http://ajaxian.com/?p=3129#comment-260189 dmdevito: a great idea, often suggested and discussed, even in the hearing of Google folks in the open source group there. McLars: the disparity between browsers is mainly outside of JS -- and where JS disparities hurt, you-know-who is the most behind (hint: who just patched JScript's DLL for IE6). Platform disparities are no excuse for halting the evolution of the web standards, including JS. It's not as if we haven't had years for the weaker JS implementations (never mind CSS and DOM) to catch up. Look to competitive pressure, or lack of it, to explain progress or stagnation. /be dmdevito: a great idea, often suggested and discussed, even in the hearing of Google folks in the open source group there.

McLars: the disparity between browsers is mainly outside of JS — and where JS disparities hurt, you-know-who is the most behind (hint: who just patched JScript’s DLL for IE6).

Platform disparities are no excuse for halting the evolution of the web standards, including JS. It’s not as if we haven’t had years for the weaker JS implementations (never mind CSS and DOM) to catch up. Look to competitive pressure, or lack of it, to explain progress or stagnation.

/be

]]> By: McLars http://ajaxian.com/archives/comparing-the-evolution-of-java-and-javascript/comment-page-1#comment-260179 McLars Wed, 19 Dec 2007 22:54:55 +0000 http://ajaxian.com/?p=3129#comment-260179 It often seems people read the first four letters and skip the rest of the name. It is a scripting language. There's no shortage of complex languages and tools for the uber-geeks, but there's also a need for simple scripting. And given the current disparity between browser implementations, do you think increasing the complexity of Javascript would make it more or less reliable, cross-browser? We shouldn't even need all these frameworks and libraries. It's just another layer of code and a whole new "language" to learn, in addition to Javascript. Fix the basics before you worry about expanding the scope. It often seems people read the first four letters and skip the rest of the name. It is a scripting language. There’s no shortage of complex languages and tools for the uber-geeks, but there’s also a need for simple scripting. And given the current disparity between browser implementations, do you think increasing the complexity of Javascript would make it more or less reliable, cross-browser? We shouldn’t even need all these frameworks and libraries. It’s just another layer of code and a whole new “language” to learn, in addition to Javascript. Fix the basics before you worry about expanding the scope.

]]> By: dmdevito http://ajaxian.com/archives/comparing-the-evolution-of-java-and-javascript/comment-page-1#comment-260178 dmdevito Wed, 19 Dec 2007 22:38:24 +0000 http://ajaxian.com/?p=3129#comment-260178 While reading this post and questioning myself the evolution of JS, I am wondering if JS needs a more standard library like Java (a CPAN web site ?). Let me give an example. AFAIK GWT translates java.util package classes into JS. OK, the compiler could optimize it while translating only needed classes. But why not having a more or less standard JS library published on a Google high-speed web site so that the compiler could rely on it and the browsers could download it once for all web sites using this standard library ? While reading this post and questioning myself the evolution of JS, I am wondering if JS needs a more standard library like Java (a CPAN web site ?). Let me give an example. AFAIK GWT translates java.util package classes into JS. OK, the compiler could optimize it while translating only needed classes. But why not having a more or less standard JS library published on a Google high-speed web site so that the compiler could rely on it and the browsers could download it once for all web sites using this standard library ?

]]> By: vance Dubberly http://ajaxian.com/archives/comparing-the-evolution-of-java-and-javascript/comment-page-1#comment-260174 vance Dubberly Wed, 19 Dec 2007 17:58:58 +0000 http://ajaxian.com/?p=3129#comment-260174 Ya know I'm watching AS developers move from AS2 to AS3 which from what I gather is going to be somewhat akin to moving to Javscript 2. To be honest, I can't wait. I've watched an endless amount of bungled impossible to follow code suddenly become legible, reusable, and easy to debug. Yes in AS2 simple things were easier to do, just as they are in our current JS world but adding some structure made the really hard things a lot easier. Ya know I’m watching AS developers move from AS2 to AS3 which from what I gather is going to be somewhat akin to moving to Javscript 2. To be honest, I can’t wait. I’ve watched an endless amount of bungled impossible to follow code suddenly become legible, reusable, and easy to debug. Yes in AS2 simple things were easier to do, just as they are in our current JS world but adding some structure made the really hard things a lot easier.

]]> By: dcrec1 http://ajaxian.com/archives/comparing-the-evolution-of-java-and-javascript/comment-page-1#comment-260160 dcrec1 Wed, 19 Dec 2007 13:18:06 +0000 http://ajaxian.com/?p=3129#comment-260160 Excellent post! Excellent post!

]]>