11–20 of 144 posts
While not exactly what the OP is calling for, this is interesting nonetheless, and it does provide a mechanism for using at least one other language in the browser, even if it uses JS as the platform, rather than natively supported.
The browsers themselves are already built and powered using JS. Maintaining a comprehensive API at the speed that web tech advances in more than one client-side scripting language would be hellish -- browser vendors already have enough trouble agreeing on CSS and JS standards. The Stack Overflow article already raised a number of good reasons why not. Not sure why this is garnering so much attention from HN.
Because we all hate javascript. I just wish they decoupled javascript engines and browsers, made a language agnostic api spec for the DOM, and just let html tags require a language ref and the browser would be expected to try to find a runtime on the local machine or ask the user to install it. The monopolistic nature of javascript in client web browsing is bad for innovation.
You're talking language syntax. Although it matters, it practically doesn't. People build stuff no matter what the language looks like. Look at Obj-C, that thing is horrid (syntax-wise) but look at all the developer adoption.
What is bad for innovation is to move back to the 90's where people had to handle local instances of applications, fix versioning problems, and have to install something just because they want one small piece of functionality.
The top comment states that any other options are impossible: "At this point we must concentrate on improving the language." I can't stand this willfully defeatist attitude. It's also not restricted to stack-overflow participants -- this position is pervasive at Mozilla. Why can't we have a standardized generic bytecode and VMs to run it? Why should the web be locked to a single language forever ? Can you imagine if…
1) JavaScript is locked in. It's too entrenched, it's never going away. Let's just accept that.
2) That means that adding additional languages creates a burden. You're now supporting, at minimum 2 VMs. If you're going to support a second VM you better get it positively right. That doesn't proclude doing it, it just means it's not coming tomorrow.
The top comment states that any other options are impossible: "At this point we must concentrate on improving the language." I can't stand this willfully defeatist attitude. It's also not restricted to stack-overflow participants -- this position is pervasive at Mozilla. Why can't we have a standardized generic bytecode and VMs to run it? Why should the web be locked to a single language forever ? Can you imagine if…
I think the reluctance comes from being burned by Microsoft infusing their own technologies into the web browser in the past. I realize that Python and Ruby would be standard and open but people still fear the possible fragmentation.
The browsers themselves are already built and powered using JS. Maintaining a comprehensive API at the speed that web tech advances in more than one client-side scripting language would be hellish -- browser vendors already have enough trouble agreeing on CSS and JS standards. The Stack Overflow article already raised a number of good reasons why not. Not sure why this is garnering so much attention from HN.
Because we all hate javascript. I just wish they decoupled javascript engines and browsers, made a language agnostic api spec for the DOM, and just let html tags require a language ref and the browser would be expected to try to find a runtime on the local machine or ask the user to install it. The monopolistic nature of javascript in client web browsing is bad for innovation.
The top comment states that any other options are impossible: "At this point we must concentrate on improving the language." I can't stand this willfully defeatist attitude. It's also not restricted to stack-overflow participants -- this position is pervasive at Mozilla. Why can't we have a standardized generic bytecode and VMs to run it? Why should the web be locked to a single language forever ? Can you imagine if…
The top comment states that any other options are impossible: "At this point we must concentrate on improving the language." I can't stand this willfully defeatist attitude. It's also not restricted to stack-overflow participants -- this position is pervasive at Mozilla. Why can't we have a standardized generic bytecode and VMs to run it? Why should the web be locked to a single language forever ? Can you imagine if…
Mozilla is not against a bytecode VM. Mozilla (and the WebKit team minus Google) is against arbitrarily adding new language VMs because they create a major compatibility burden. Remember this: 1) JavaScript is locked in. It's too entrenched, it's never going away. Let's just accept that. 2) That means that adding additional languages creates a burden. You're now supporting, at minimum 2 VMs. If you're going to suppor…
JavaScript doesn't have to go anywhere, it can run on a shared VM like any other language.
> That means that adding additional languages creates a burden. You're now supporting, at minimum 2 VMs. If you're going to support a second VM you better get it positively right. That doesn't proclude doing it, it just means it's not coming tomorrow.
There is literally zero investment in moving such an idea forward on the part of Mozilla and WebKit (sans Google). In fact, there's active resistance, while at the same time strongly favoring JavaScript as the one option.
The position more seems to be "we might chip in if someone else comes up with the perfect answer" rather than "yes, this is a problem that needs to be solved to improve developer productivity, application quality, and help the web compete with other platforms".
The top comment states that any other options are impossible: "At this point we must concentrate on improving the language." I can't stand this willfully defeatist attitude. It's also not restricted to stack-overflow participants -- this position is pervasive at Mozilla. Why can't we have a standardized generic bytecode and VMs to run it? Why should the web be locked to a single language forever ? Can you imagine if…
Mozilla is not against a bytecode VM. Mozilla (and the WebKit team minus Google) is against arbitrarily adding new language VMs because they create a major compatibility burden. Remember this: 1) JavaScript is locked in. It's too entrenched, it's never going away. Let's just accept that. 2) That means that adding additional languages creates a burden. You're now supporting, at minimum 2 VMs. If you're going to suppor…
Also, this:
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2009-June/090038...