Javascript is over! It's the age of Action Script!
JavaScript is not suitable for large web apps
211–218 of 218 posts
Re: JavaScript is not suitable for large web apps
#212For a certain definition of "large" and for certain domains ( especially finance ) his argument is very, very valid. 200 average developers working with GWT->JS are anyday going to be more productive than coding native JS to get the same functionality. This isn't anti-JS...end of the day if you are on the web your code is JS. Thing is, how do you get there - do you hire 20 pricey smart JQuery guys, or 200 average Jav…
You fail to make a general point about JS. Instead you make the point that jQuery is inadequate for large apps, and I agree. Just because you failed with jQuery dosent mean JS can't be used. I've seen Big JS projects go horribly wrong, but I've alse seen big C# projects go horribly wrong (And COBOL and ...). Every time the projects didn't have good tests, a CI server, nightly builds, structured code reviews, a modular and simple design etc. If you use all the good practices available, big JS projects become maintainable.
It shines through in your post that you didn't do it close to right.
Re: JavaScript is not suitable for large web apps
#213I've been a part of some fairly large JS projects. I think you can develop solid software in either case. It boils down to the developer in most cases. Having said that, there's no doubt you're given the ability to do a lot more around enforcing structure with constructs such as abstract classes or interfaces. the timing of this post is interesting as I recently put a project up on github (https://github.com/vannatech/blade) for essentially coding JavaScript in a .NET-ish environment. I think maybe even as valuable as some of the thing strong typing brings is the ability to make use of the IDE (you get Visual Studio, assembly referencing etc). For building reusable components I feel like it's definitely the way to go. For annotating a page to add UI features, I'd push for JS. Then there's a lot of area between that where it could vary depending on other factors. Overall I can agree on some levels with the post. But I think, as in most things, it's important to understand the underlying technologies. Abstracting away JavaScript and the browser related APIs will inevitably lead to bad results.
Re: JavaScript is not suitable for large web apps
#214Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ok, seriously, I'm sort of sick of the file-stew meme in software development these days. Our editors aren't particularly designed for the one-file-per-function method of development that's been ohh-so-common. Serious, if a file is under a hundred lines of code, it probably doesn't need to be a separate file, it only undermines the grouping value that files are useful for.
I usually do the following: - if function A and B are always used together, than they are one file. - if linecount gets to big, split A and B into separate files - if function C is shared between modules than it belongs in it's own file So far it worked out great.
So long as #3 takes #1 into account.
Re: JavaScript is not suitable for large web apps
#215Earlier quoted context omitted.
CoffeeScript is a syntax, not a language. His arguments have to do with the semantics of JavaScript, which are identical to the semantics of CoffeeScript.
Coffeescript has a very similar object model, but it does alter (fix) the semantics of variable binding and expression statements and some unusably broken operators, and those involve treating Javascript more like a compilation target than an equivalent dialect.
Yesss running s/==/===/g...very semantically different ;)
Re: JavaScript is not suitable for large web apps
#216FACT: Javascript/HTML/CSS holds the biggest monopoly any piece of technology ever has. There is almost NO viable alternative if you want to program for the web. Even the notoriously closed IOS has far more (over 20 popular languages now can be used to compile an app's UI and logic code for)
The title is true BUT for another reason.
It is not suitable because there are so many great languages and language experts - but relatively few who are JS experts.
Why does javascript have a monopoly on browsers? Why can't there be some kind of WBVM (web browser virtual machine) that X language can be compiled down to? Why does JS have to be the assembly language of the web? This fact only makes things difficult and messy to have most languages cross compile to. I think that the W3C are a bunch of idiots for not pushing for something like this. They are stifling innovation more than Microsoft (or anyone else I can remember) ever has IMO. There SHOULD be an open standard for this.
Only very high level JS experts could pull off a large web application in JS. This accounts for maybe 5% of US businesses. Throw in High level experts for X language and now you probably have 60%+ of businesses who could accomplish such a thing. The Same goes for the browser UI as well (HTML and CSS pffff) How about the VM having the ability to draw all these elements instead of merely pushing HTML/CSS in our faces as an only option). We could use superior technologies like Flex, XAML, ETC. instead of HTML/CSS.
You love Javascript? great, but don't push it in my face. I have 3 favorite languages and JS is not anywhere near them.
The web browser is a platform (though it lives inside another platform) but one which is among most proprietary ever.
Why aren't more people pissed off about this?
Re: JavaScript is not suitable for large web apps
#217Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except Javascript isn't assembly, no matter how much the author would like to think so. It's a reasonably well featured, multi-paradigm high-level language.
Woosh...that is the sound of the point flying over your head.
you might consider going back to slashdot. i didn't miss his point at all, try reading my comment again, but this time, try to read the statement "but Javascript isn't assembly" a little less literally.
Re: JavaScript is not suitable for large web apps
#218Is there any credible data on static vs. dynamic typing?
I'm not a specialist on this topic (i.e. I'm only a programmer, not a computer scientist), but I don't seem to remember any links posted to relevant such studies in any of the "static vs. dynamic typing" flame wars. Also, a little bit OT, I've been a professional programmer for 7 years now (i.e. getting paid to write code) and to this day I'm not sure 100% what's the difference between "0", "NULL", "None" or an empty…
"I've been a professional programmer for 7 years now (i.e. getting paid to write code) and to this day I'm not sure 100% what's the difference between "0", "NULL", "None" or an empty string. What type does "None" belong to? Can I compare it to the integer 0?"
been doing PHP by any chance? ;)