Fog Creek Software
Discussion Board




JavaScript

Funny to see this.

If you posted a question about JavaScript here for several moths ago. The forum thread would be flamed by stuff like
"amateur" "script kiddie" "no one develops in JS" "LOL"

But after the "Api war" article by Joel, suddenly everybody is fishing for their JavaScript skills, books etc. again :)

just testing
Wednesday, June 30, 2004

There's some neat things you can do in Javascript, like this Wolfenstien game http://www.wolf5k.com/ and creating pngs on the client side http://www.elf.org/pnglets/ (IE only unfortunately).

This DHTML library is quite nice too for vector drawing:  http://www.walterzorn.com/dragdrop/dragdrop_e.htm http://www.walterzorn.com/jsgraphics/jsgraphics_e.htm

Matthew Lock
Wednesday, June 30, 2004

I meant Netcape/Mozilla only above.

Matthew Lock
Wednesday, June 30, 2004

The fact that it is now has street-cred doesn't alter the fact that it is revolting. If you have ever read the O'Reilly book or the ECMA 262 standard, both read to me very strongly as a description of a language that has been reverse engineered from a rather poor and ill thought out scripting language thrown together by someone at Netscape Communications (remember them?) who didn't really know what they were doing.

Harvey Pengwyn
Wednesday, June 30, 2004

Exactly what don't you like about Javascript? I personally don't like the differences between the browser implementations but I think the language is quite nice.

Matthew Lock
Wednesday, June 30, 2004

I have blotted most of it out of my mind, but it seemed very conceptually unclean to me. Most of the time I found myself forward engineering the reverse engineered description of the implementation and thinking 'ah, so it looks in a map of these, then if it doesn't find it it looks in this map..' etc.

Harvey Pengwyn
Wednesday, June 30, 2004

Here's a great quote about Javascript:

"JavaScript has become the Rodney Dangerfield of scripting languages. Dilettantes and Johnny-come-latelies seem to think they enhance their cachet by dissing it. Instead, like the snotty dot-commers, they reveal that it is they who, "Just don't get 'it'."

http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roadmap/archives/005632.html/rod

Matthew Lock
Wednesday, June 30, 2004

And here is a quote about people who say 'you just don't get it' :-)
"The giveaway that cult thinking is present in any environment is how responses are given from possible cult members to probable nonbelievers. If you disagree, then you 'don't get it. Werner Erhard of EST (the über-cult of the 1970's) used to use this phrase over and over. Tell Erhard that something makes no sense. 'You don't get it.' Tell him that something is self-contradictory. 'You don't get it.' Tell him that something is just plain stupid. 'You don't get it.' This is the level of debate you can expect when cult thinking is present. But, of course, 'I don't get it.'")

Harvey Pengwyn
Wednesday, June 30, 2004

PS, I was dissing JavaScript before it became fashionable (it may even have been called LiveScript at the time :-) )

Harvey Pengwyn
Wednesday, June 30, 2004

PPS, the quote was from The Register here

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/01/22/techno_utopians_net_candidate_falters/

Harvey Pengwyn
Wednesday, June 30, 2004

I heard it's even possible to call web services from DHTML:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/workshop/author/webservice/overview.asp

Maybe this would even work from FireFox?

http://dean.edwards.name/moz-behaviors/

The question is, does anyone care and will anyone do it?  Okay, that's two questions.

brad
Wednesday, June 30, 2004

"Most of the time I found myself forward engineering the reverse engineered description of the implementation...

Harv, get a grip.  It's JavaScript.  You're either thinking too hard or don't know what you're doing.

script kiddie
Wednesday, June 30, 2004

"There's some neat things you can do in Javascript, like this Wolfenstien game"

It does a good job of crashing my browser.

I guess this is one of these examples of providing all features at zero cost infinitely quick as long as it doesn't have to work?

Dennis Atkins
Wednesday, June 30, 2004

> the quote was from The Register here

Nice irony that that page has 13 javascript errors on it.

Dennis Atkins
Wednesday, June 30, 2004

Dynapi is an excellent api for Javascript:

http://dynapi.sourceforge.net/dynapi/

Ged Byrne
Wednesday, June 30, 2004

""Most of the time I found myself forward engineering the reverse engineered description of the implementation...

Harv, get a grip.  It's JavaScript.  You're either thinking too hard or don't know what you're doing. "

Probably both.

Harvey Pengwyn
Wednesday, June 30, 2004

brad: hell yes. On my current project, I've made a remoting component framework for heavier javascript clients. Sum total, nothing can meet this thing for responsiveness. With the scripts cached in the browser, all it serves is data through XML, and it really is awesome. Email me if you want to be prompted when the site is live.

Direct connection to the server (essentially XML Remoting) is simply awesome. With this and the current ability of dHtml and CSS, I completely disagree with Joel's "the heavy web client aint there yet" spiel.

Arron Bates
Wednesday, June 30, 2004

"I personally don't like the differences between the browser implementations"

You couldn't have coded against recent browsers then. The newer mozillas and IE 4+ have no real difference. In an app that throws more than 500K of script at the client, there's only a half dozen lines that need to distinguish IE from the rest. For anyone that still complains of browser differences... I ask them to look again.

Add the fact that it's much more productive to code against Mozilla... when you're ready to commit a feature, just check it in IE before you do. 49 times out of 50, it'll work flawlessly. That last time is typically an easily tweakable thing. Working this way, where's the problem from including Mozilla?

Arron Bates
Wednesday, June 30, 2004

*  Recent Topics

*  Fog Creek Home