5 ms·

I'm curious if the author has heard of sites like: * https://repl.it/ https://repl.it/ * https://jsfiddle.net/ https://jsfiddle.net/ I didn't see anything li

I'm curious if the author has heard of sites like: * https://repl.it/ https://repl.it/ * https://jsfiddle.net/ https://jsfiddle.net/ I didn't see anything like that mentioned in the article, but I think that you can easily write code inside your browser today. Also, web browsers are already extremely heavy and complicated. That complexity is convenient for end users, but it also has costs, like making it very difficult and expensive to create a new competitive browser. Do we really need to add another standard to turn them into offline IDEs on top of everything else?

atum47 6y ago
Back in college I would sketch something every day in jsfiddle
topcat31 6y ago
Mentioned Glitch and Replit in the article - they're great and I love them but there's still something missing about relying on these platforms imho. I think cementing a default coding environment right into the browser would make it a lot more accessible - and actually be much closer to real coding where you're manipulating files and running code. Plus: glitch/replit are quite slow to do any real coding inside of vs developing locally. But maybe the future really is in the browser in this way.
- thrashh 6y ago
  But why stop there? Let’s bundle something like Excel or Powerpoint, or Photoshop or Final Cut. If we’re deciding to bundle additional software with a browser, why would a programming environment (chosen based on someone’s favorite language) be top priority?
  - loopz 6y ago
    They already put entire desktop environments in some two decades ago. It never took off.
    - gjvc 6y ago
      With good reasons at the time -- browsers were slow and heavy. Now we have (among others) the V8 Javascript engine and insanely fast client computers (all of any recent desktop, laptop, and mobile device)
      - wizzwizz4 6y ago
        Browsers are slower and heavier than they ever were. V8… you could argue it's faster, if you neglect warm-up time, but even it is heavier.
        gjvc 6y ago
        acknowledged, but in my experience they are way quicker than 1990s / 2000s browsers
  - 0-_-0 6y ago
    Because installing Excel is simple already
    - perryizgr8 6y ago
      Install excel and nodejs. Then evaluate which was easier. I suspect node will win by a wide margin.
      - 0-_-0 6y ago
        Already did. The author found that installing Node.js needs knowledge about the command line while Excel just needs a few clicks of "Next" (I just did it yesterday)
        twobitshifter 6y ago
        Node.js could improve their installer, would that solve all of OPs complaints?
        0-_-0 6y ago
        Probably.
        kubanczyk 6y ago
        Partially. OP also wrote that he want's a JS IDE bundled.
    - rowanG077 6y ago
      Having installed excel and node countless times I can safely say excel is harder to install.
  - madeofpalk 6y ago
    Imagine if there was some kind of runtime the browser shipped with that could let developers create all kind of applications that are downloaded and run on demand. That would be pretty cool.
- tidenly 6y ago
  If you open the dev tools in your browser there's a full sandbox environment right there, not to mention the load of other sites available. I don't see why specifically Node should be installed.
  - chubot 6y ago
    I just wrote a bunch of code inside Chrome devtools to do some web scraping. It works pretty well, with a REPL, (overly aggressive) autocomplete, and good integration with the DOM, but it's also limited. Saving and loading .js files uses a very non-standard flow. The editor is OK but I think basic operations like "find across files" are missing. It's very "canned" and not customizable. In other words, it feels more like a debugging environment than a programming environment, which I think is basically what they were going for.
  - onion2k 6y ago
    Not only that, but if you set up Workspaces in Chrome (https://developers.google.com/web/tools/chrome-devtools/workspaces https://developers.google.com/web/tools/chrome-devtools/work...) you can edit files stored on your computer using devtools, making it even more like an IDE.
  - shawnz 6y ago
    Agreed, the much stronger counterargument is that all major browsers already have JS development environments built in! I am curious to hear why this is not suitable for the author.
- rpdillon 6y ago
  I think you're craving a 21st century version of Emacs, where the development environment is baked into the product. I agree it's awesome, and I think the browser comes the closest, but you're right, it's not there yet. I fear the reason is mostly security: browsers are used by billions, but Emacs benefits from relative obscurity.
colejohnson66 6y ago
For TypeScript, there’s the TS Playground: https://www.typescriptlang.org/play https://www.typescriptlang.org/play
jansan 6y ago
I use jsfiddle a lot for small experiments. Another grate website is https://codesandbox.io https://codesandbox.io
hathym 6y ago
or cloud9 https://aws.amazon.com/fr/cloud9/ https://aws.amazon.com/fr/cloud9/
joshxyz 6y ago
This this this. repl.it, stackblitz.com, codesandbox.io, jsfiddle.net, codepen.io Back then we don't even have online repls jesus christ. These days devs got it easy it's really amazing
jariel 6y ago
Those are basically standalone apps, not integrated into many of the other systems we use, which is the authors point.

atum47 6y ago

Back in college I would sketch something every day in jsfiddle

topcat31 6y ago

Mentioned Glitch and Replit in the article - they're great and I love them but there's still something missing about relying on these platforms imho. I think cementing a default coding environment right into the browser would make it a lot more accessible - and actually be much closer to real coding where you're manipulating files and running code. Plus: glitch/replit are quite slow to do any real coding inside of vs developing locally. But maybe the future really is in the browser in this way.

thrashh 6y ago
But why stop there? Let’s bundle something like Excel or Powerpoint, or Photoshop or Final Cut. If we’re deciding to bundle additional software with a browser, why would a programming environment (chosen based on someone’s favorite language) be top priority?
- loopz 6y ago
  They already put entire desktop environments in some two decades ago. It never took off.
  - gjvc 6y ago
    With good reasons at the time -- browsers were slow and heavy. Now we have (among others) the V8 Javascript engine and insanely fast client computers (all of any recent desktop, laptop, and mobile device)
    - wizzwizz4 6y ago
      Browsers are slower and heavier than they ever were. V8… you could argue it's faster, if you neglect warm-up time, but even it is heavier.
      - gjvc 6y ago
        acknowledged, but in my experience they are way quicker than 1990s / 2000s browsers
- 0-_-0 6y ago
  Because installing Excel is simple already
  - perryizgr8 6y ago
    Install excel and nodejs. Then evaluate which was easier. I suspect node will win by a wide margin.
    - 0-_-0 6y ago
      Already did. The author found that installing Node.js needs knowledge about the command line while Excel just needs a few clicks of "Next" (I just did it yesterday)
      - twobitshifter 6y ago
        Node.js could improve their installer, would that solve all of OPs complaints?
        0-_-0 6y ago
        Probably.
        kubanczyk 6y ago
        Partially. OP also wrote that he want's a JS IDE bundled.
  - rowanG077 6y ago
    Having installed excel and node countless times I can safely say excel is harder to install.
- madeofpalk 6y ago
  Imagine if there was some kind of runtime the browser shipped with that could let developers create all kind of applications that are downloaded and run on demand. That would be pretty cool.
tidenly 6y ago
If you open the dev tools in your browser there's a full sandbox environment right there, not to mention the load of other sites available. I don't see why specifically Node should be installed.
- chubot 6y ago
  I just wrote a bunch of code inside Chrome devtools to do some web scraping. It works pretty well, with a REPL, (overly aggressive) autocomplete, and good integration with the DOM, but it's also limited. Saving and loading .js files uses a very non-standard flow. The editor is OK but I think basic operations like "find across files" are missing. It's very "canned" and not customizable. In other words, it feels more like a debugging environment than a programming environment, which I think is basically what they were going for.
- onion2k 6y ago
  Not only that, but if you set up Workspaces in Chrome (https://developers.google.com/web/tools/chrome-devtools/workspaces https://developers.google.com/web/tools/chrome-devtools/work...) you can edit files stored on your computer using devtools, making it even more like an IDE.
- shawnz 6y ago
  Agreed, the much stronger counterargument is that all major browsers already have JS development environments built in! I am curious to hear why this is not suitable for the author.
rpdillon 6y ago
I think you're craving a 21st century version of Emacs, where the development environment is baked into the product. I agree it's awesome, and I think the browser comes the closest, but you're right, it's not there yet. I fear the reason is mostly security: browsers are used by billions, but Emacs benefits from relative obscurity.

colejohnson66 6y ago

For TypeScript, there’s the TS Playground: https://www.typescriptlang.org/play https://www.typescriptlang.org/play

jansan 6y ago

I use jsfiddle a lot for small experiments. Another grate website is https://codesandbox.io https://codesandbox.io

hathym 6y ago

or cloud9 https://aws.amazon.com/fr/cloud9/ https://aws.amazon.com/fr/cloud9/

joshxyz 6y ago

This this this. repl.it, stackblitz.com, codesandbox.io, jsfiddle.net, codepen.io Back then we don't even have online repls jesus christ. These days devs got it easy it's really amazing

jariel 6y ago

Those are basically standalone apps, not integrated into many of the other systems we use, which is the authors point.