3 ms·

I'm not even sure it's more full-featured than non-OS application platforms, like Java. Mostly what it has is a large install base.

• tracker1 11y ago
  I'm not sure that I could create/style a Java based application nearly as easily as HTML markup and CSS though.
  • deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  • cwyers 11y ago
    That may be true, depending on how you look at it? JavaScript was the language that, as Eric Lippert put it, was designed to "make the monkey dance.[1]" HTML and CSS and JavaScript are all designed around this ethos of try to figure out what was meant and throw SOMETHING on the screen. It's very forgiving, and it's really easy to get up and running with it quick. I'm not sure that's the same as full-featured; it makes a lot of things more accessible than Java or .NET or Win32 or Cocoa. But it doesn't have the width of functionality they do (it is catching up, admittedly, but they're not required to stay static either) and it makes more complicated tasks more difficult, especially if you need them to be performant. http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/221615/why-do-dynamic-languages-make-it-more-difficult-to-maintain-large-codebases http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/221615/why-do...
  • h1940624 11y ago
    I've had the opposite experience.
• oneeyedpigeon 11y ago
  If you can be flexible enough with the definition of 'full-featured' to read as 'able to run/produce more', I would argue that 'the browser' – if it encompasses http, html, javascript, and css – is more full-featured than Java. And we wouldn't even need to argue that the former's install base towers over the latter's.