5 ms·

I actually believe that the HTML/JS/CCS/DOM mess is a good thing and that it's a pretty powerful combination that rivals other more powerful languages in 90% of

I actually believe that the HTML/JS/CCS/DOM mess is a good thing and that it's a pretty powerful combination that rivals other more powerful languages in 90% of the cases for the kind of applications one might want to build. HTML is actually one of the most powerful layout engines out there, Javascript is as versatile and powerful a language as you might want to ask for in 90% of the cases, CSS has it's flaws but they are being addressed and is fine for most styling issues and DOM is just a very easy to understand albeit crude way to handle objects. All in all a combination of tools that makes it extremely easy to get started and se results right away. I believe this is also on of the reasons why PHP is so popular. It's ability to seamlessly integrate with that "mess" either to take over the formatting or to fit into the existing formatting. It's a conceptual framework thats closest to what we as humans understand. Pythons problem like most other programming languages including Objective-C and Ruby is that while they are elegant and powerful computationally they are horrible for most people to get started with because just setting it up in itself is a big task. So I don't think we are stuck. In fact I believe that if Python would take the same laize faire approach to the mess as PHP it would be much more popular than it is today.

gaius 11y ago
You know, if MS had written Outlook in VBA and told people to read their email as a plugin to Word, they would have been laughed out of the room. But that's exactly what Google did with GMail and now everyone builds apps that way! Browsers are for documents, and forcing applications to be interactive documents is, when you look at it like that, ludicrous.
- ThomPete 11y ago
  Browser are for whatever browsers can be made to be for. There are things it's optimal for but luckily we don't live in a world were people only do what things were originally meant for. I am using gmail in the browser. I am discussing this with you. I am transferring money between accounts, playing games, filling out surveys, controlling projects, looking up routes on map, enjoying streaming music, video etc. It's all good.
  - zeveb 11y ago
    > There are things it's optimal for but luckily we don't live in a world were people only do what things were originally meant for. I can write medical-imaging software in sed, because sed is Turing-complete, but if I did that I would be insane. Using HTML, JavaScript and CSS for general-purpose software is only slightly saner.
    - ThomPete 11y ago
      General purpose software such as google maps?
    - sime2009 11y ago
      That's a ridiculous comparison. No one is developing desktop style applications using sed just because it is turing complete, and there ain't billions of people using this software running on sed. If the web was such a terrible application platform then it would not have been able to stomp the traditional desktop as much as it already has so far.
      - gaius 11y ago
        Of course it would. Have you not been following the tech industry, let alone the entire world, at all? Bad ideas become wildly popular all the time...
        ThomPete 11y ago
        Your definition of bad ideas seems rather puritan. Not sure most agree on that.
        gaius 11y ago
        It's OK the world is coming 'round; that's why it's all about native apps on phones, not browsers and mobile websites.
        11y ago
- 91bananas 11y ago
  Luckily turns out it isn't 1995 anymore. Browsers let you do stuff, pretty cool stuff last time I checked, sometimes it's play video, sometimes it's read a document, other times it is to create tangible things.
  - gaius 11y ago
    You can embed a video in a Word doc too. I don't know anyone who watches movies like that.
    - ThomPete 11y ago
      Not sure what your point is gaius. Care to elaborate?
      - PeCaN 11y ago
        I'll bite: Wrong tool for the job, just like using a scriptable remote document viewer as an application platform.
        ThomPete 11y ago
        That make no sense since the web is successfully used for many other things than reading document.s
- sime2009 11y ago
  > Browsers are for documents We are now in the year 2016, not 1996. Browsers moved past the "networked document viewer" stage well over a decade ago and have been deliberately evolving into full application platforms ever since.
zeveb 11y ago
> HTML is actually one of the most powerful layout engines out there But it's terribly verbose and isn't extensible. XML was extensible, but even more verbose. Also, I wouldn't say that HTML is a layout engine; CSS is the layout engine while HTML denotes the structure to be laid out. > Javascript is as versatile and powerful a language as you might want to ask for in 90% of the cases Erm, no. It's a terrible little language with some horrible misfeatures (==/===, {} &c.) which has one virtue: near-universal deployment. > DOM is just a very easy to understand albeit crude way to handle objects I've never really thought the DOM was all that easy to understand. Attributes vs. nodes, text nodes in unexpected places — it's a mess compared to a nice tree of strings and trees would be. > It's a conceptual framework thats closest to what we as humans understand. No, it's the conceptual framework we ended up with, so we all have taught ourselves and been taught to understand it. > Pythons problem like most other programming languages including Objective-C and Ruby is that while they are elegant and powerful computationally they are horrible for most people to get started with because just setting it up in itself is a big task. sudo apt-get install python python Python 2.7.9 (default, Mar 1 2015, 12:57:24) [GCC 4.9.2] on linux2 Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information. >>> "hello world" 'hello world' >>> That seems pretty simple to me.
- ThomPete 11y ago
  javascript:window.alert("Hello World"); Your answer perfectly illustrates my point. You focus on the wrong things. None of your distinctions or interpretations of what I say are wrong per-se, they are just not important distinctions. The fact is that people can quickly build a webpage with all the bells and whistles in an environment they undertand without having to install anything or rely on dependencies to get started. They can fiddle around, experiment with it in real time etc. they can play around with it so to speak. It doesn't take itself too serious. It doesn't have a "guardians of the right way" saying how it can and can't be used. You can still go to town and go crazy in making perfectly optimized code but it's not demanding that from you. These are the important bricks in creating something that is powerful. It's ability to function as a toy for the very novice people. To easily provide them with visual feedback with assets they can relate to (cat pictures, video they saw somewhere) etc. This is what VB had this is what HTML/CSS/JS/DOM/(PHP) has in spades. The non-judgement of the experts.
bobwaycott 11y ago
Setting up Python is a big task? Is that on Windows? On the nixes, including Macs: A. Open your favorite terminal emulator 2. Type "python" D. Press "enter" Also, I think you meant laissez-faire.
- ThomPete 11y ago
  Yeah it's a big task compared to doing a html or javascript document.
  - bobwaycott 11y ago
    No, it's not. It's built into every non-Windows OS. You don't even have to create a document to use it.
    - ThomPete 11y ago
      Yes it is. Because most people don't know what to use it for and so the mental barrier becomes the first hurdle for them to solve. Even the Terminal in itself is a mental barrier to most people. Even after that is solved it's still hard for people to understand exactly why they should choose Python vs. HTML/CSS/JS/DOM. In fact I don't think you can give one example of why they in 90% of the cases should use Python unless they are doing fairly complex stuff.
      - bobwaycott 11y ago
        We are talking about developers building applications here, not "most people". Most people don't know anything about HTML, CSS, JS, the DOM, how we got here, how it works, etc. They are neither the target audience of the article nor of the discussion happening here.
        ThomPete 11y ago
        Yes they are. go back and read the thread from the beginning then it becomes clear how "most people" are relevant.
bobwaycott 11y ago
Writing an iOS app in Objective-C was the first time I remember thinking, "Goddamn, this is beautiful" since I was 12 and found Basic. One fucking language. Looked the same on every device. And it wasn't hard to get a project going. We are making a fucking computer application, not boiling water for tea. Now everyone thinks it's progress and noteworthy and oh-my-fucking-gods-amazing to do this shit with fucking HTML, CSS, and JavaScript. What. The. Fuck. Can't Silicon Valley startups afford developers who can...you know...learn technology and write some code? Is SV only able to disrupt the world by leveraging a browser every damn step of the way? We are fucking modern-day wizards of techromancy who bend electrons to our will. We are the closest we've ever been to magic (since 1969). We come up with ideas. We make them something fleshy bags of water can poke at with their greasy, grubby, sausage-like fingers while they chortle and snort and spit their Cheetos on their screens. All by just futzing about with some incantations we spill out via keypresses. We can make just about anything that doesn't violate the laws of physics, and we keep defending HTML/CSS/JS as anything other than a horrible fucking wreck that steals our babies in the night, and thus our joy. Nothing about the browser stack is a conceptual framework that is closest to what we humans understand. That CSS has made slower progress in not being a shitshow than Python 3 is fucking abominable. That everyone is clamoring for JS to get all these proven-to-be-holy-rocket-ship-to-the-heavens features other languages have had for-fucking-ever, and had better, is just sad. What we seem to be creating is an entire decade of developers who can't seem to work without the browser stack. And that's a problem. Because we are going to be reaping the rewards of this for a long while. Browsers need to move beyond, developers need to move beyond. HTML is great when all you want is a motherfucking website.[1] CSS is fine if you're looking for a better/best motherfucking website.[2] JS was cool ... once upon a time. All three being the primary path taken for building every new thing just feels sad. [1]: http://motherfuckingwebsite.com http://motherfuckingwebsite.com [2]: https://bestmotherfucking.website https://bestmotherfucking.website [3]: While it's always good to use the best tool for the job, that shouldn't mean we stop creating better tools. Right now, the browser stack just seems content to keep adding more tools into the toolbox, instead of inventing the fucking cotton gin and automated harvester.
- ThomPete 11y ago
  You want everyone to be wizards but they are not. You want everyone to find value in only the most advanced forms of science but hey newsflash they are not. Most people are finding value in very very simple even simplistic things. Instead of being offended by that instead find solace in the fact that you can create things most other cannot.

gaius 11y ago

You know, if MS had written Outlook in VBA and told people to read their email as a plugin to Word, they would have been laughed out of the room. But that's exactly what Google did with GMail and now everyone builds apps that way! Browsers are for documents, and forcing applications to be interactive documents is, when you look at it like that, ludicrous.

ThomPete 11y ago
Browser are for whatever browsers can be made to be for. There are things it's optimal for but luckily we don't live in a world were people only do what things were originally meant for. I am using gmail in the browser. I am discussing this with you. I am transferring money between accounts, playing games, filling out surveys, controlling projects, looking up routes on map, enjoying streaming music, video etc. It's all good.
- zeveb 11y ago
  > There are things it's optimal for but luckily we don't live in a world were people only do what things were originally meant for. I can write medical-imaging software in sed, because sed is Turing-complete, but if I did that I would be insane. Using HTML, JavaScript and CSS for general-purpose software is only slightly saner.
  - ThomPete 11y ago
    General purpose software such as google maps?
  - sime2009 11y ago
    That's a ridiculous comparison. No one is developing desktop style applications using sed just because it is turing complete, and there ain't billions of people using this software running on sed. If the web was such a terrible application platform then it would not have been able to stomp the traditional desktop as much as it already has so far.
    - gaius 11y ago
      Of course it would. Have you not been following the tech industry, let alone the entire world, at all? Bad ideas become wildly popular all the time...
      - ThomPete 11y ago
        Your definition of bad ideas seems rather puritan. Not sure most agree on that.
        gaius 11y ago
        It's OK the world is coming 'round; that's why it's all about native apps on phones, not browsers and mobile websites.
        11y ago
91bananas 11y ago
Luckily turns out it isn't 1995 anymore. Browsers let you do stuff, pretty cool stuff last time I checked, sometimes it's play video, sometimes it's read a document, other times it is to create tangible things.
- gaius 11y ago
  You can embed a video in a Word doc too. I don't know anyone who watches movies like that.
  - ThomPete 11y ago
    Not sure what your point is gaius. Care to elaborate?
    - PeCaN 11y ago
      I'll bite: Wrong tool for the job, just like using a scriptable remote document viewer as an application platform.
      - ThomPete 11y ago
        That make no sense since the web is successfully used for many other things than reading document.s
sime2009 11y ago
> Browsers are for documents We are now in the year 2016, not 1996. Browsers moved past the "networked document viewer" stage well over a decade ago and have been deliberately evolving into full application platforms ever since.

zeveb 11y ago

> HTML is actually one of the most powerful layout engines out there But it's terribly verbose and isn't extensible. XML was extensible, but even more verbose. Also, I wouldn't say that HTML is a layout engine; CSS is the layout engine while HTML denotes the structure to be laid out. > Javascript is as versatile and powerful a language as you might want to ask for in 90% of the cases Erm, no. It's a terrible little language with some horrible misfeatures (==/===, {} &c.) which has one virtue: near-universal deployment. > DOM is just a very easy to understand albeit crude way to handle objects I've never really thought the DOM was all that easy to understand. Attributes vs. nodes, text nodes in unexpected places — it's a mess compared to a nice tree of strings and trees would be. > It's a conceptual framework thats closest to what we as humans understand. No, it's the conceptual framework we ended up with, so we all have taught ourselves and been taught to understand it. > Pythons problem like most other programming languages including Objective-C and Ruby is that while they are elegant and powerful computationally they are horrible for most people to get started with because just setting it up in itself is a big task. sudo apt-get install python python Python 2.7.9 (default, Mar 1 2015, 12:57:24) [GCC 4.9.2] on linux2 Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information. >>> "hello world" 'hello world' >>> That seems pretty simple to me.

ThomPete 11y ago
javascript:window.alert("Hello World"); Your answer perfectly illustrates my point. You focus on the wrong things. None of your distinctions or interpretations of what I say are wrong per-se, they are just not important distinctions. The fact is that people can quickly build a webpage with all the bells and whistles in an environment they undertand without having to install anything or rely on dependencies to get started. They can fiddle around, experiment with it in real time etc. they can play around with it so to speak. It doesn't take itself too serious. It doesn't have a "guardians of the right way" saying how it can and can't be used. You can still go to town and go crazy in making perfectly optimized code but it's not demanding that from you. These are the important bricks in creating something that is powerful. It's ability to function as a toy for the very novice people. To easily provide them with visual feedback with assets they can relate to (cat pictures, video they saw somewhere) etc. This is what VB had this is what HTML/CSS/JS/DOM/(PHP) has in spades. The non-judgement of the experts.

bobwaycott 11y ago

Setting up Python is a big task? Is that on Windows? On the nixes, including Macs: A. Open your favorite terminal emulator 2. Type "python" D. Press "enter" Also, I think you meant laissez-faire.

ThomPete 11y ago
Yeah it's a big task compared to doing a html or javascript document.
- bobwaycott 11y ago
  No, it's not. It's built into every non-Windows OS. You don't even have to create a document to use it.
  - ThomPete 11y ago
    Yes it is. Because most people don't know what to use it for and so the mental barrier becomes the first hurdle for them to solve. Even the Terminal in itself is a mental barrier to most people. Even after that is solved it's still hard for people to understand exactly why they should choose Python vs. HTML/CSS/JS/DOM. In fact I don't think you can give one example of why they in 90% of the cases should use Python unless they are doing fairly complex stuff.
    - bobwaycott 11y ago
      We are talking about developers building applications here, not "most people". Most people don't know anything about HTML, CSS, JS, the DOM, how we got here, how it works, etc. They are neither the target audience of the article nor of the discussion happening here.
      - ThomPete 11y ago
        Yes they are. go back and read the thread from the beginning then it becomes clear how "most people" are relevant.

bobwaycott 11y ago

Writing an iOS app in Objective-C was the first time I remember thinking, "Goddamn, this is beautiful" since I was 12 and found Basic. One fucking language. Looked the same on every device. And it wasn't hard to get a project going. We are making a fucking computer application, not boiling water for tea. Now everyone thinks it's progress and noteworthy and oh-my-fucking-gods-amazing to do this shit with fucking HTML, CSS, and JavaScript. What. The. Fuck. Can't Silicon Valley startups afford developers who can...you know...learn technology and write some code? Is SV only able to disrupt the world by leveraging a browser every damn step of the way? We are fucking modern-day wizards of techromancy who bend electrons to our will. We are the closest we've ever been to magic (since 1969). We come up with ideas. We make them something fleshy bags of water can poke at with their greasy, grubby, sausage-like fingers while they chortle and snort and spit their Cheetos on their screens. All by just futzing about with some incantations we spill out via keypresses. We can make just about anything that doesn't violate the laws of physics, and we keep defending HTML/CSS/JS as anything other than a horrible fucking wreck that steals our babies in the night, and thus our joy. Nothing about the browser stack is a conceptual framework that is closest to what we humans understand. That CSS has made slower progress in not being a shitshow than Python 3 is fucking abominable. That everyone is clamoring for JS to get all these proven-to-be-holy-rocket-ship-to-the-heavens features other languages have had for-fucking-ever, and had better, is just sad. What we seem to be creating is an entire decade of developers who can't seem to work without the browser stack. And that's a problem. Because we are going to be reaping the rewards of this for a long while. Browsers need to move beyond, developers need to move beyond. HTML is great when all you want is a motherfucking website.[1] CSS is fine if you're looking for a better/best motherfucking website.[2] JS was cool ... once upon a time. All three being the primary path taken for building every new thing just feels sad. [1]: http://motherfuckingwebsite.com http://motherfuckingwebsite.com [2]: https://bestmotherfucking.website https://bestmotherfucking.website [3]: While it's always good to use the best tool for the job, that shouldn't mean we stop creating better tools. Right now, the browser stack just seems content to keep adding more tools into the toolbox, instead of inventing the fucking cotton gin and automated harvester.

ThomPete 11y ago
You want everyone to be wizards but they are not. You want everyone to find value in only the most advanced forms of science but hey newsflash they are not. Most people are finding value in very very simple even simplistic things. Instead of being offended by that instead find solace in the fact that you can create things most other cannot.