11 ms·

Google & the Future of JavaScript

103 points by simanyay 15y ago

geraldalewis 15y ago
I'm looking forward to discussing this, but in the meantime, can anyone parse "Similarly, I think we can find a way to repair “this” binding foot-guns with softly-bound “this”." for me? I don't understand what "binding foot-guns" are.
- othermaciej 15y ago
  What he means is: 1) "this" binding is dangerous - you can easily shoot yourself in the foot with it (it is a "foot-gun"). 2) "this" binding can probably be repaired with softly-bound "this". There's no such thing as "binding foot-guns", the phrase breaks down between "binding" and "foot-". But "'this' binding" and "foot-gun" are both somewhat obscure phrases so this probably was not as clear as it could have been.
  - geraldalewis 15y ago
    Thanks! I hadn't come across the foot-gun meme before (http://web.mit.edu/~axch/www/footshoot.html http://web.mit.edu/~axch/www/footshoot.html).
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- InclinedPlane 15y ago
  He means foot-guns of the this-binding variety.
- AndrewDucker 15y ago
  foot-guns are guns used to shoot yourself in the foot. Binding is a complex thing to get right, and it sounds like putting the "this" reference into Javascript correctly so it doesn't cause problems (and cause you to metaphorically shoot yourself in the foot) is requiring effort.
cageface 15y ago
With about nine months of work behind me on platforms designed from the ground up to support rich, interactive UIs (Android & iOS), the mess of JS, HTML & CSS just seems so gratuitously painful in comparison. From a philosophical standpoint I'm rooting for an open, interoperable web as much as anybody. As a programmer though it's hard to feel much enthusiasm for such a fragmented, baroque, and inadequate toolkit.
- jchrisa 15y ago
  The web was originally conceived as documents, not interactive content. It's done fairly well, but we could sure use an addressable content and application space that is not always tied to the limits of HTML. One thing the richer mobile toolkits leave out, that drove the web's success, is the "view source" feature, a tremendous way to on-board new developers.
  - crizCraig 15y ago
    This open source characteristic is also vital for search engines, data aggregators, and general interoperability on the web.
    - cageface 15y ago
      This doesn't necessarily have to be at the UI level. If sites have a well defined API they can still be indexed but serviced for users by native apps. In fact, this is better than kludgy scraping.
      - crizCraig 15y ago
        For that you'd have to have a standard API with indicators of content importance. Even then it would be akin to keyword meta tags which are bad representations of site content in general.
      - deleted 15y ago
        [deleted]
- 15y ago
esk 15y ago
With Windows 8, Microsoft is ushering in native JavaScript apps. It's probably in their best interest to keep developers firmly in the JavaScript camp—the more JavaScript developers their are, the more developers there are for whom native Windows 8 development will be second nature. Unless Microsoft adopts Dart, I see them fighting hard to improve the JavaScript development experience.
- danssig 15y ago
  I don't think Microsoft has the ability to control most developers anymore. Least of all web developers.
- tadfisher 15y ago
  Microsoft won't have a choice -- Dart targets Javascript as well as a Dart-specific VM.
swannodette 15y ago
Deferred functions. ClojureScript. Scoped Object Extensions. ClojureScript. Modules. ClojureScript. And you don't have stop there. Want advanced pattern matching? Want logic programming? Want delimited continuations? You don't need to wait for Apple, for Google, for Mozilla, for Oracle. Language development is too important to not happen where development happens best - in the field and in open source software projects.
- true_religion 15y ago
  Why don't Apple, Google, Mozilla, and Oracle count as being "in the field"? And, your statement that development happens best in open source software is optimistic and opinionated.
  - swannodette 15y ago
    Not sure what's optimistic about it. Those features are there. You don't need to wait for them because they were easy to implement from w/in the language itself. Same way you traditionally build libraries. All those companies are moving their languages and libraries at an incredibly slow pace and will continue to do so (since their languages don't really give them any alternatives). Nothing pessimistic about that. They are large companies with little room for flexibility.
  - statictype 15y ago
    your statement [...] is optimistic and opinionated The best type of comment to make! Also, there's merit in what he says about language development. A lot of the really nice languages are developed in the open.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
GutenYe 15y ago
cross-platform is the future.
Tichy 15y ago
I feel very uneasy about this. JavaScript is great because it is so simple. All the things mentioned sound as if they add unnecessary complexity. Why not just leave JavaScript alone, and push for a more universal way for browsers to run code? Then different languages could be used, and those who want it could program with more advanced languages (or whatever they deem to be advanced).
- zobzu 15y ago
  Like ActiveX and NativeCode?
  - Tichy 15y ago
    No, more like creating a VM. JavaScript is essentially the VM now, but I suppose something more universal could be created (more suitable for accommodating all sorts of languages).
    - equark 15y ago
      Google has two efforts in this direction, the Dart VM and PNaCl. On many levels both are about as ideal as you could possibly imagine. However there is virtually no chance either is going to be adopted by other browsers. Neither are standard and both would require adopting huge new toolchains and codebases.

103 points by simanyay 15y ago

I'm looking forward to discussing this, but in the meantime, can anyone parse "Similarly, I think we can find a way to repair “this” binding foot-guns with softly-bound “this”." for me? I don't understand what "binding foot-guns" are.

othermaciej 15y ago
What he means is: 1) "this" binding is dangerous - you can easily shoot yourself in the foot with it (it is a "foot-gun"). 2) "this" binding can probably be repaired with softly-bound "this". There's no such thing as "binding foot-guns", the phrase breaks down between "binding" and "foot-". But "'this' binding" and "foot-gun" are both somewhat obscure phrases so this probably was not as clear as it could have been.
- geraldalewis 15y ago
  Thanks! I hadn't come across the foot-gun meme before (http://web.mit.edu/~axch/www/footshoot.html http://web.mit.edu/~axch/www/footshoot.html).
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
InclinedPlane 15y ago
He means foot-guns of the this-binding variety.
AndrewDucker 15y ago
foot-guns are guns used to shoot yourself in the foot. Binding is a complex thing to get right, and it sounds like putting the "this" reference into Javascript correctly so it doesn't cause problems (and cause you to metaphorically shoot yourself in the foot) is requiring effort.

cageface 15y ago

With about nine months of work behind me on platforms designed from the ground up to support rich, interactive UIs (Android & iOS), the mess of JS, HTML & CSS just seems so gratuitously painful in comparison. From a philosophical standpoint I'm rooting for an open, interoperable web as much as anybody. As a programmer though it's hard to feel much enthusiasm for such a fragmented, baroque, and inadequate toolkit.

jchrisa 15y ago
The web was originally conceived as documents, not interactive content. It's done fairly well, but we could sure use an addressable content and application space that is not always tied to the limits of HTML. One thing the richer mobile toolkits leave out, that drove the web's success, is the "view source" feature, a tremendous way to on-board new developers.
- crizCraig 15y ago
  This open source characteristic is also vital for search engines, data aggregators, and general interoperability on the web.
  - cageface 15y ago
    This doesn't necessarily have to be at the UI level. If sites have a well defined API they can still be indexed but serviced for users by native apps. In fact, this is better than kludgy scraping.
    - crizCraig 15y ago
      For that you'd have to have a standard API with indicators of content importance. Even then it would be akin to keyword meta tags which are bad representations of site content in general.
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
15y ago

esk 15y ago

With Windows 8, Microsoft is ushering in native JavaScript apps. It's probably in their best interest to keep developers firmly in the JavaScript camp—the more JavaScript developers their are, the more developers there are for whom native Windows 8 development will be second nature. Unless Microsoft adopts Dart, I see them fighting hard to improve the JavaScript development experience.

danssig 15y ago
I don't think Microsoft has the ability to control most developers anymore. Least of all web developers.
tadfisher 15y ago
Microsoft won't have a choice -- Dart targets Javascript as well as a Dart-specific VM.

swannodette 15y ago

Deferred functions. ClojureScript. Scoped Object Extensions. ClojureScript. Modules. ClojureScript. And you don't have stop there. Want advanced pattern matching? Want logic programming? Want delimited continuations? You don't need to wait for Apple, for Google, for Mozilla, for Oracle. Language development is too important to not happen where development happens best - in the field and in open source software projects.

true_religion 15y ago
Why don't Apple, Google, Mozilla, and Oracle count as being "in the field"? And, your statement that development happens best in open source software is optimistic and opinionated.
- swannodette 15y ago
  Not sure what's optimistic about it. Those features are there. You don't need to wait for them because they were easy to implement from w/in the language itself. Same way you traditionally build libraries. All those companies are moving their languages and libraries at an incredibly slow pace and will continue to do so (since their languages don't really give them any alternatives). Nothing pessimistic about that. They are large companies with little room for flexibility.
- statictype 15y ago
  your statement [...] is optimistic and opinionated The best type of comment to make! Also, there's merit in what he says about language development. A lot of the really nice languages are developed in the open.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

GutenYe 15y ago

cross-platform is the future.

Tichy 15y ago

I feel very uneasy about this. JavaScript is great because it is so simple. All the things mentioned sound as if they add unnecessary complexity. Why not just leave JavaScript alone, and push for a more universal way for browsers to run code? Then different languages could be used, and those who want it could program with more advanced languages (or whatever they deem to be advanced).

zobzu 15y ago
Like ActiveX and NativeCode?
- Tichy 15y ago
  No, more like creating a VM. JavaScript is essentially the VM now, but I suppose something more universal could be created (more suitable for accommodating all sorts of languages).
  - equark 15y ago
    Google has two efforts in this direction, the Dart VM and PNaCl. On many levels both are about as ideal as you could possibly imagine. However there is virtually no chance either is going to be adopted by other browsers. Neither are standard and both would require adopting huge new toolchains and codebases.