5 ms·

I think the key point of this article over the other related article (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=284192 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=284192) is

I think the key point of this article over the other related article (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=284192 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=284192) is that John points out that tracing will be able to be applied to DOM manipulation/property access in the future. "Being able to trace through a DOM method would successfully speed up, not only, math and object-intensive applications (as it does now) but also regular DOM manipulation and property access." As I said on the previous article, "I believe tracing very well could be the key to unlocking advances in that [DOM] area as well." To me, this means that JavaScript will finally be integrated with the browser in a way that is required to advance the web. I've always wondered what would be the "big thing" to lead up to the move towards the web even more, and this is definitely the answer. The only thing left now is making it so JavaScript can be compiled (the only way I can think of how to accomplish preventing stealing code).

gruseom 18y ago
speed up, not only, math and object-intensive applications (as it does now) but also regular DOM manipulation Agreed. The sooner they get to that, the better! Edit: As an aside, the web arguably wouldn't have happened without "stealing code". I see this as a strength not a weakness.
- tokipin 18y ago
  true, but it's not as straightforward when the things you're stealing are whole applications
- invisible 18y ago
  I'm not against open sourcing code, or giving away helpful small things, but at the moment anyone can copy every bit of useful functionality of a JS application and just create their own back-end. That is a very ridiculous concept, and there isn't much that can be done about it if that person isn't within the same country.
  - thwarted 18y ago
    It might be more valuable to avoid basing your business on artificial scarcity to begin with.
    - invisible 18y ago
      Well, I guess if the business model were to not make a significant amount of money then no scarcity would be perfect! But really, scarcity (real or "fake") needs to exist or else I would be wasting time creating a PRODUCT (in other words: something that is sold).
      - ph0rque 18y ago
        > scarcity (real or "fake") needs to exist or else I would be wasting time creating a PRODUCT (in other words: something that is sold). Not true: see 37signals, for example.
        invisible 18y ago
        I think you misunderstand what artificial scarcity means (or I do somehow). 37signals is proof that artificial scarcity must exist in some form to profit. Adding a price to something creates a form of artificial scarcity. From my perspective, you just agreed with me.
        thwarted 18y ago
        Artificial scarcity is trying to limit access to something which can not be limited. Once bits, for any purpose, are put in the right order to do something or represent something, the cost to replicate those bits to other parties is zero. In contrast with an automobile, even after it is designed, significant infrastructure (currently) needs to be built and exist to create another one. What you are paying for when you purchase a car is the PROCESS that went into creating JUST that ONE car you bought. Additional cars would not exist if the infrastructure didn't exist to create more of them (and then economies of scale come into play, making the car actually affordable). Bits do not have that limitation. Scarcity and want must exist in order to set a legitimate price. Artificial scarcity sets a price on something that isn't actually scarce. It is a (unfortunate?) side-effect of the market that potential buyers think that because something has a price, it must be worth having (ie scarce). I don't think there's actually anything wrong with basing a business on this, but don't be surprised when your customers realize you've been selling them something that should have a price closer to zero because there is infinite supply.

gruseom 18y ago

speed up, not only, math and object-intensive applications (as it does now) but also regular DOM manipulation Agreed. The sooner they get to that, the better! Edit: As an aside, the web arguably wouldn't have happened without "stealing code". I see this as a strength not a weakness.

tokipin 18y ago
true, but it's not as straightforward when the things you're stealing are whole applications
invisible 18y ago
I'm not against open sourcing code, or giving away helpful small things, but at the moment anyone can copy every bit of useful functionality of a JS application and just create their own back-end. That is a very ridiculous concept, and there isn't much that can be done about it if that person isn't within the same country.
- thwarted 18y ago
  It might be more valuable to avoid basing your business on artificial scarcity to begin with.
  - invisible 18y ago
    Well, I guess if the business model were to not make a significant amount of money then no scarcity would be perfect! But really, scarcity (real or "fake") needs to exist or else I would be wasting time creating a PRODUCT (in other words: something that is sold).
    - ph0rque 18y ago
      > scarcity (real or "fake") needs to exist or else I would be wasting time creating a PRODUCT (in other words: something that is sold). Not true: see 37signals, for example.
      - invisible 18y ago
        I think you misunderstand what artificial scarcity means (or I do somehow). 37signals is proof that artificial scarcity must exist in some form to profit. Adding a price to something creates a form of artificial scarcity. From my perspective, you just agreed with me.
        thwarted 18y ago
        Artificial scarcity is trying to limit access to something which can not be limited. Once bits, for any purpose, are put in the right order to do something or represent something, the cost to replicate those bits to other parties is zero. In contrast with an automobile, even after it is designed, significant infrastructure (currently) needs to be built and exist to create another one. What you are paying for when you purchase a car is the PROCESS that went into creating JUST that ONE car you bought. Additional cars would not exist if the infrastructure didn't exist to create more of them (and then economies of scale come into play, making the car actually affordable). Bits do not have that limitation. Scarcity and want must exist in order to set a legitimate price. Artificial scarcity sets a price on something that isn't actually scarce. It is a (unfortunate?) side-effect of the market that potential buyers think that because something has a price, it must be worth having (ie scarce). I don't think there's actually anything wrong with basing a business on this, but don't be surprised when your customers realize you've been selling them something that should have a price closer to zero because there is infinite supply.