Live data from Hacker News

The State of JavaScript - Brendan Eich

brendaneich.github.com

231–240 of 266 posts

Re: The State of JavaScript - Brendan Eich

#231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem a lot more interested in getting me to take back things than you are in taking back your misleading slide. Substitute whatever adjectives you want if the ones I used offend you, but the point still remains that the most vocal criticism of (P)NaCl comes from Mozilla and it is anything but "balanced." I would feel more inclined to issue an actual retraction if there was any indication that I was mistaken about…

The slide I showed is not misleading. NaCl is not portable, PNaCl is still not ready for prime time based on Google's own actions, and you protest too much and do not practice what you preach. "Mozilla" meaning me, bzbarsky, blizzard (previously), roc on the plugin-futures list, others have been forthright compared to the mostly-silent other browser vendors, who haven't even spoken via corporate or individual channel…

I've expressed my personal opinions about NaCl here on HN before too: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2057611

Re: The State of JavaScript - Brendan Eich

#232
post #184
post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You would opt into macrology redefining == to be === or whatever you want. Oh, please let the syntax for this be something like let == = ===; :-P

Let's not run an extra let statement if we don't have to! if (== != === || == !== ===) let == = ===;

Shouldn't that be var to get the right scope?

Re: The State of JavaScript - Brendan Eich

#233
Every time I read an article or see a presentation like this - about JavaScript, Node.js, etc I feel like I am somehow appeared in the club of very particular interest (say, leather clothes with large openings on the back). And, despite of discussing the main subject, the members every time tend to talk about world politics, religion, and science, and how all these are affected by the size of the openings on the back. Wierd.

Re: The State of JavaScript - Brendan Eich

#234

I would expect to hear something like that not from a respected tehnologist but rather from yet another "cool kid". He could just say "JavaScript is awesome" on a single slide and that wouldn't tell much less than what the whole presentation did. > First they said JS couldn't be useful for building rich internet apps Who said it is? Rich - yes. Anything near to match complexity of the desktop apps - never(think Photo…

Photoshop is a notorious pig. I know many designers who have already ditched it for in-browser development. See the latest JSConf.eu talk on this topic: http://2012.jsconf.eu/speaker/2012/08/29/because-f-k-photosh... (slides: https://speakerdeck.com/u/nrrrdcore/p/js-dot-conf-dot-eu-201... -- but you probably had to be there). I sense trollery here: "but you can add bindings to all of this stuff for virtually any prog…

I can't believe that you point out the Bananabread demo as proof that JS is doing WebGL in a performant fashion. Issues: * I have a PC that is set up for playing bleeding edge AAA games and Bananabread stutters on it. * The technology on display is worse than that on offer in Quake 2 (1997 era). * A Java applet (Jake) was playing the full Quake 2 game release EIGHT YEARS AGO which underscores how behind JS really is in the performance stakes. And Jake was hardly cutting edge for Java, at that point, either.

Look, JS is fine for what it was intended for, but an actual bytecode VM for the web makes way more sense than JS being the only way to do it. Bytecode is much more amenable to optimisation and we have several existing examples we could use RIGHT NOW rather than do a poor job reinventing the wheel with a poor substitute. As a scripting language, JS is great. As a 'bytecode for the web', JS is utterly and completely unsuited and not intended for that task.

The SANE thing to do is design a Bytecode standard, optimise the hell out of that, and allow people to use whatever tools they want to target it rather than insist that people must use JS or something else hobbled by JS's limitations as a compile target.

Re: The State of JavaScript - Brendan Eich

#235

I would expect to hear something like that not from a respected tehnologist but rather from yet another "cool kid". He could just say "JavaScript is awesome" on a single slide and that wouldn't tell much less than what the whole presentation did. > First they said JS couldn't be useful for building rich internet apps Who said it is? Rich - yes. Anything near to match complexity of the desktop apps - never(think Photo…

Photoshop is a notorious pig. I know many designers who have already ditched it for in-browser development. See the latest JSConf.eu talk on this topic: http://2012.jsconf.eu/speaker/2012/08/29/because-f-k-photosh... (slides: https://speakerdeck.com/u/nrrrdcore/p/js-dot-conf-dot-eu-201... -- but you probably had to be there). I sense trollery here: "but you can add bindings to all of this stuff for virtually any prog…

> Photoshop is a notorious pig. I know many designers who have already ditched it for in-browser development.

The point was not about using Photoshop for design on the web, but rather its complexity. IDE's, CAD, engineering applications. Well, we don't even have to go that far. When Google Docs are going to process 500k row spreadsheets? I use Google Docs casually for quick and simple stuff, but for any serious work - probably not.

> I know many designers who have already ditched it for in-browser development

I know many people(all of them are extremely bright) who use Linux on the desktop. I use Linux too(I am not implying I am a clever bloke here). Does this mean Linux is winning the OS war? Otherwise this is just argumentum ad populum. I'll look through the slides and get back to you.

> I sense trollery here: "but you can add bindings to all of this stuff for virtually any programming language." Who said otherwise? The bogus claims against JS (going back to the "RIA" era, where IBM and Macromedia/Adobe made such arguments) already fell.

I apologize if you suspected a troll in me, but I did not imply comparison with Flash. Flash is just another competitor for you. What What I meant by "but you can add bindings to all of this stuff for virtually any programming language." is if use C/C++ or any other language with access to the OS APIs I don't depend on the wits of browser vendors shipping a particular API for me.

> And play BananaBread, for crying out loud (https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/demos/detail/bananabread). You simply do not know what you are talking about by your next-to-last paragraph.

Believe me or not, but this is exactly the game I was referring to. The link was on the HN last week or so. To be more specific, my graphics card is AMD Radeon HD 6970, capable of running Crysis 2, and I was experiencing lags. As for the graphics, have you ever played Half-Life 2? It was released in 2004 and I can't see this game having any better graphics if not worse. Not to mention that Half-Life would have at least 3x higher FPS on my hardware. Could you please clarify on "You simply do not know what you are talking about"?

> Yes, typed arrays were ad-hoc (so are many incremental web standards that win). Binary data (arrays and structs, which compose) as proposed in ES6 are not.

Ok, it's good to see JS is going in the right direction. And thanks for taking time to responding to my message. I am actually excited about the work you do at Mozilla on Rust, and I'd like to see a language like that to be available on the client side. But I understand that it's not going to happen anytime soon.

Re: The State of JavaScript - Brendan Eich

#236

I would expect to hear something like that not from a respected tehnologist but rather from yet another "cool kid". He could just say "JavaScript is awesome" on a single slide and that wouldn't tell much less than what the whole presentation did. > First they said JS couldn't be useful for building rich internet apps Who said it is? Rich - yes. Anything near to match complexity of the desktop apps - never(think Photo…

Why do we need to make Photoshop in JS? I can't make a printing press in C++, but why would I want to? Photoshop was made during an era where computers were used to make media for physical printing. You would take a picture with an analog camera, digitize it, manipulate it in Photoshop, and then have it ready for print. "Save For Web" is the closest you get to using Photoshop for publishing to the web, and you'd have…

> Photoshop was made during an era where computers were used to make media for physical printing. You would take a picture with an analog camera, digitize it, manipulate it in Photoshop, and then have it ready for print. "Save For Web" is the closest you get to using Photoshop for publishing to the web, and you'd have to admit it's a bit of an afterthought in the whole experience.

Javascript was made during an era where rich web applications didn't exist and there only was a need for client side verification for form input. Why do you refuse Photoshop in evolution but allow it for JS?

Re: The State of JavaScript - Brendan Eich

#237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem a lot more interested in getting me to take back things than you are in taking back your misleading slide. Substitute whatever adjectives you want if the ones I used offend you, but the point still remains that the most vocal criticism of (P)NaCl comes from Mozilla and it is anything but "balanced." I would feel more inclined to issue an actual retraction if there was any indication that I was mistaken about…

The slide I showed is not misleading. NaCl is not portable, PNaCl is still not ready for prime time based on Google's own actions, and you protest too much and do not practice what you preach. "Mozilla" meaning me, bzbarsky, blizzard (previously), roc on the plugin-futures list, others have been forthright compared to the mostly-silent other browser vendors, who haven't even spoken via corporate or individual channel…

> At this point you are perfectly clear: you want a free lunch

Nope, I wanted a footnote that says "they're working on it." That is about 97% of what I wanted from this discussion. ES6 isn't "ready for prime time" either, being an unfinished spec, and yet the entire presentation was about that. You're comparing JavaScript's future with NaCl's present, and not mentioning that it is Google's stated purpose to remove the glaring limitation that is the basis of your discounting it as a technology (at least as far as that slide is concerned). How is that not misleading?

I have never once suggested, in a single one of my messages on this thread, that non-Chromium browsers should adopt NaCl/Pepper in their current form (in fact I have said exactly the opposite, that I can understand their reasons for not wanting to), and yet you continue to attribute this viewpoint to me, calling me "astoundingly naive" for it, and issuing no retraction for that (despite all the retractions you demand from me). How is this the moral high ground?

I would be happy (more than happy, actually) to completely retract my statement, since it certainly gives me no pleasure to think that you would mislead your audience, but you are declining to demonstrate that I was wrong or that you have an interest in being entirely forthcoming with your audience. By pressuring me to retract my statements while feeling free to say what you want I feel you are bullying me. I'm not a huge fan of how you are ascribing inaccurate viewpoints to me and calling me names for them, and yet I am not demanding that you retract it all or I will discount your existence as a person (incredibly harsh, by the way).

Re: The State of JavaScript - Brendan Eich

#238

I would expect to hear something like that not from a respected tehnologist but rather from yet another "cool kid". He could just say "JavaScript is awesome" on a single slide and that wouldn't tell much less than what the whole presentation did. > First they said JS couldn't be useful for building rich internet apps Who said it is? Rich - yes. Anything near to match complexity of the desktop apps - never(think Photo…

Photoshop is a notorious pig. I know many designers who have already ditched it for in-browser development. See the latest JSConf.eu talk on this topic: http://2012.jsconf.eu/speaker/2012/08/29/because-f-k-photosh... (slides: https://speakerdeck.com/u/nrrrdcore/p/js-dot-conf-dot-eu-201... -- but you probably had to be there). I sense trollery here: "but you can add bindings to all of this stuff for virtually any prog…

> See the latest JSConf.eu talk on this topic: http://2012.jsconf.eu/speaker/2012/08/29/because-f-k-photosh.... (slides: https://speakerdeck.com/u/nrrrdcore/p/js-dot-conf-dot-eu-201.... -- but you probably had to be there).

Just skimmed through the presentation, yes I had to be there because the slides don't tell too much. On the other hand there is no point in going to the conference where the speaker uses the work "fuck" on every other slide and concludes it with "YOU ARE ALL AWESOME". I'd prefer to attend more technical talks, without any "awesomeness". And I can't see how she made Photoshop irrelevant. I'd expect a more credible study on it.

Re: The State of JavaScript - Brendan Eich

#240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On TypeScript, are you seriously asking for warning-annotations? The class syntax is in for ES6, not original to TS. Or do you mean 'interface' as structural type (record width subtyping relation) declaration form?

I like the structural subtyping. This is a feature I also like in Go.

I know +1's don't help but ditto from me.

I haven't had time to use TS much yet but the combination of structural type system (not needing to inherit from IFoo, if you have the members it's enough) and optional typing look like exactly what I want.

Hopefully this pays off in terms of not only self-descriptive code but also greater support for refactoring tools.

Post reply on HN