161–170 of 459 posts
I wonder how much of global warming is caused by inefficient code written in higher level languages requiring more powerful hardware to run. It might be infinitesimal but still non-zero.
Ugggh :( I miss my old Outlook 2013. Outlook 2016 is so slow it can’t keep up wirh my typing. I thought it already was javascript. Guess it will be even slower still. Super! (not)
Why not C#? Seems a bit of a missed opportunity to feed some of the APIs undoubtedly created for this into the new .net core stuff. I guess i'll just keep dreaming of the day when i can reliably convert a docx into a pdf without using office interop.
I'm guessing that in this case they're only talking about the "office software running in the browser" version of Office 365, not the "subscription pricing model for the desktop suite" version.
As if they didn't learn their lesson with skype for business.
There's a Skype for Business written in JavaScript? I know there is Skype, but it doesn't talk to our Skype for Business (Lync) server.... I have to use Pidgin for that. (Linux)
The Skype for Business Windows client was barely reskinned from the Lync 2013 client. I think they are still only a couple dozen patch revisions apart on the version number.
I wonder how much of global warming is caused by inefficient code written in higher level languages requiring more powerful hardware to run. It might be infinitesimal but still non-zero.
Technically JavaScript is only ~7% slower then C++ to execute. But snipe away at that stats with real data.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>it's just not a terribly good or fast one From everything I've seen, its performance sits just below Java (4x slower, perhaps) on some standard algorithms or tasks, and significantly faster than languages like Ruby, Python, etc.. I never see hate for those languages like for JS, so I'll disregard that. >not terribly good This one never has made sense. What is it missing that makes you hate it so? I think it has rath…
> What is it missing that makes you hate it so? 1. Type Safety. TypeScript helps, but until strong typing is mandatory in the language, I can't fathom using JS in any sizable project. This is also true of Python, et al. 2. A sane dependency management framework. Maven solved this problem a decade ago. Gradle is trying to fix Maven's XML mistake. But the fact is, if I need a dependency in Java, I know how to get it. A…
I for one welcome our new Libre Office overlords.
Does LibreOffice still look like a Windows 3.11 application?
https://www.gnome-look.org/p/1079270/
Hey you know, with a different font and a slightly different colour scheme that wouldn't be far off the Metro look.
FWIW, I personally like the direction Microsoft is going in. I look forward to seeing where this transformation leads.
The positive side of breaking compatibility with all legacy technologies (COM, VBA, XLL, etc) that currently force large companies to stick to MS Office is that it has the potential to reintroduce competition in the office-like software space. And in my opinion Office is the main reason why large enterprises stick to Windows. Most internal apps are moving to the web. If office backward compatibility goes away, then i…
Which is the end result of Webification of our tools.
Why not C#? Seems a bit of a missed opportunity to feed some of the APIs undoubtedly created for this into the new .net core stuff. I guess i'll just keep dreaming of the day when i can reliably convert a docx into a pdf without using office interop.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a "real" language, it's just not a terribly good or fast one. It's works decently when its use is limited to what it was made for: manipulating web pages. For anything else, the "designed on the back of a used piece of toilet paper" starts to shine through. And no, a JIT can't save you from this, it can only make things acceptable. That it can create "real world value" is an extremely low bar, which is passed by…
"real world value" is a completely fair metric. You might be able to argue that different languages offer more value than JS, for different use cases. But mocking the idea of "real world value" seems to completely miss the underlying point of app development -- which is to deliver value.
Some extra hoops to jump above "delivering value (measured in revenue)" are:
- Not creating extra problems for yourself down the line (maintenance costs, complexity, technical debt).
- Not creating extra problems for everyone else (promotion of technologies causing problems if adopted).
- Not dumping externalities on other people (inefficient solutions causing worse UX, more frustration and extra electricity usage).
- Delivering actual value, as measured on the user end (whether or not the software makes them more productive), instead of revenue end (i.e. did we manage to trick enough people to pay us?).