JavaScript assumes a "web browser". What happens when we're not using a "web browser"?
A few days ago, I was actually downvoted for even suggesting that a user could disable JavaScript and that this might reduce her vulnerability to exploits. I'm always fascinated by the strength of the bias in favor of JavaScript.
I'm guessing that so many developers are now so heavily invested in JavaScript that if it were to become less popular they believe they would suffer somehow. They will thus defend this language with fervor. That's my guess.
Days ago we saw Dan Bricklin, who is no stranger to a world without a web browser and is responsible for the app that literally launched the PC into the mainstream, put in his plug for JavaScript. But we also learned he's written entire spreadhseet applications in JavaScript. It appears he's heavily invested in this language. It stands to reason he would defend its use.
On this thread someone mentioned that Bill Joy thought Java applets would power the web. Not surprising considering his company was responsible for Java, and he has called James Gosling, the father of Java, his favorite programmer.
I think when we look at JavaScript we need to ask ourselves who stands to gain the most from it. My belief is that it benefits developers more than users. It's aesthetically pleasing to most developers, but more importantly, programming in JavaScript requires less work than using a language with manual memory management that does not expect to be run inside another application (a "web browser"). JavaScript boosts productivity.
Users, I believe, do not see the same benefits. (e.g. I have seen Marissa Mayer while at Google state how important speed is to users. We might accept that speed is one benefit that users would recognize.)
Because the love for .js is so strong and criticism of it is not well received, I won't go into any more detail. But suffice it to say, if there are problems with using JavaScript, I believe it is not developers who would suffer the most from them. I believe it is users who would bear the burden.
Well , now that developpers can do crazy stuffs with javascript they will never use it responsibly and will show every trick they know to the user, because they want or because their clients want it.
I remember the time when 100ko pages were considered too heavy. now devs dont even bother optimizing images and use 500 ko png logos...
A few days ago, I was actually downvoted for even suggesting that a user could disable JavaScript and that this might reduce her vulnerability to exploits. I'm always fascinated by the strength of the bias in favor of JavaScript.
I'm guessing that so many developers are now so heavily invested in JavaScript that if it were to become less popular they believe they would suffer somehow. They will thus defend this language with fervor. That's my guess.
Days ago we saw Dan Bricklin, who is no stranger to a world without a web browser and is responsible for the app that literally launched the PC into the mainstream, put in his plug for JavaScript. But we also learned he's written entire spreadhseet applications in JavaScript. It appears he's heavily invested in this language. It stands to reason he would defend its use.
On this thread someone mentioned that Bill Joy thought Java applets would power the web. Not surprising considering his company was responsible for Java, and he has called James Gosling, the father of Java, his favorite programmer.
I think when we look at JavaScript we need to ask ourselves who stands to gain the most from it. My belief is that it benefits developers more than users. It's aesthetically pleasing to most developers, but more importantly, programming in JavaScript requires less work than using a language with manual memory management that does not expect to be run inside another application (a "web browser"). JavaScript boosts productivity.
Users, I believe, do not see the same benefits. (e.g. I have seen Marissa Mayer while at Google state how important speed is to users. We might accept that speed is one benefit that users would recognize.)
Because the love for .js is so strong and criticism of it is not well received, I won't go into any more detail. But suffice it to say, if there are problems with using JavaScript, I believe it is not developers who would suffer the most from them. I believe it is users who would bear the burden.