Comments on: JavaScript running to the server

By: Jesse Kuhnert

Jesse Kuhnert — Wed, 11 Jul 2007 23:07:20 +0000

@kourge:
It may be a little uncomfortable seeing actual class stuff coming in to the picture – but without it people are going to have a really hard time finding good counter arguments to :

http://beust.com/weblog/archives/000454.html

for bigger enterprise-y type projects. Maybe that’s not where it should be used (js2), but if it works it sounds potentially kind of fun..

By: kourge

kourge — Wed, 11 Jul 2007 18:56:38 +0000

The problem with haxe is that its JavaScript implementation is ActionScript 2.0-ish, being heavily based on the concept of classes. To quote a quote from bash.org, ActionScript is like C#, Java, and Visual Basic had a threesome, and did not use protection. I personally find ActionScript less refreshing than JavaScript.

By: carmen

carmen — Wed, 11 Jul 2007 01:36:03 +0000

simile is using a headless firefox as a server, for its crowbar scraper daemon. with the existing serverside JS stuff sucking ( i mean, writing JS in JAVA is just not fast, sorry..) and Tamarin coming, it will be neat to see this concept mature to the point of more robust usability

By: Berislav Lopac

Berislav Lopac — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 16:40:09 +0000

The guys over at http://www.wxjavascript.net have a mod_wxjs Apache module which gives you the server-side Javascript. Also, http://www.whitebeam.org has a whole Javascript-based server-side environment.

In any case, I personally prefer SpiderMonkey implementations to Rhino ones.

By: mikael bergkvist

mikael bergkvist — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 15:53:58 +0000

The same is the very core principle of http://www.widgetplus.com and the widgets there, which are all database driven serverside widgets, and the coding behind them – on the server – is javascript and it’s mimicking the browsers DHTML enviroment almost o the letter.