5 ms·

This is completely the wrong thing to do. Google should be proposing a standard, open, byte-code compatible, Intermediate Language standard that can run Javasc

by sambeau 15y ago

This is completely the wrong thing to do. Google should be proposing a standard, open, byte-code compatible, Intermediate Language standard that can run Javascript and in the interim run on Javascript. That is something I could see Mozilla and Apple getting behind. Only once they have actively campaigned for this should they be adding new languages to the browser which fracture the web. I had hoped that Dart would surprise us and turn out to be a 'machine-code for the web' implementation. This would have been a much smarter move, I believe.

ConstantineXVI 15y ago
Oddly enough, if in-browser Java had "won", we'd already have such a thing.
- sambeau 15y ago
  True. But in return we would have had to endure 10 years of in-browser Java.
  - tolmasky 15y ago
    We would have just built something else on the JVM. You could be writing Ruby in the browser with JRuby, or Python in the browser with Jython, or Scala. This would be a much better world (tooling and performance-wise) than the current compile to high level JS strategy.
  - wavephorm 15y ago
    As opposed to 10 years of stagnant JavaScript, and a conversion en-masse of all all video, audio, game content to Flash?? It was really sad to see everybody moving to Flash JavaScript could've done video/audio and games a long time ago.
- leoc 15y ago
  Not necessarily - in that case, we might still be stuck with the Sun-versus-MS and Sun-versus-the-world games over control of the JVM, and with the JVM's startup-time problem. Though the startup-time problem was so bad that it's hard to imagine in-browser Java winning with the problem still there.
paulkoer 15y ago
+1000. Give us a platform that people can grow languages on! Maybe the DartVM could become something like what you describe in the same sense as the JVM/CLR is a platform for many languages now? But since their pushing the language it doesn't seem to be the stated goal... sad ;(
leoc 15y ago
> Google should be proposing a standard, open, byte-code compatible, Intermediate Language standard that can run Javascript and in the interim run on Javascript. > That is something I could see Mozilla and Apple getting behind. Why would you expect either Mozilla or Apple to get behind such a proposal? Apple has a powerful self-interest in making sure the Web remains a second-best app platform behind iOS and desktop OS X. Mozilla wants the Web to be the premier app platform - but it's no bloody good to Mozilla if the web is the world's #1 web platform but Mozilla has no control over it anymore. The last thing Mozilla wants to see is the Web browser become some fairly-easily-implemented, highly-interchangeable runtime platform adhering to a stable, open spec somewhere. This would, I think, be very good for the world at large, but it would undoubtedly be very bad for Mozilla - it's what is known as the commoditization of the platform. Mozilla's self-interest is served by keeping as much of the Web as possible controlled, in the minutest detail possible, by the hard-to-join club of major browser vendors. Right down to things like the lexical syntax of JavaScript. So in reality, as soon as Google proposed such an IL, Mozilla's advocates would start blowing smoke about "oh no, another Java".
- BrendanEich 15y ago
  "Mozilla" consists in part of a bunch of people working to write down standards precisely so new browser implementors can enter the market and interoperate. I've spent years at this for the JS standard. It's part of the inevitable commoditization you cite. Also, going back to 2006 or so when I invited pre-Google Alex Russell and other JS hackers to Ecma TC39 meetings, Mozillans including yours truly have tried to open up the standards process. Mozilla, Opera, and Apple co-founded the WHATWG and set up an open membership structure for it in 2004, to create HTML5. W3C finally relented and internalized much of that structure. So alleging that "Mozilla" is trying to keep the old boy's club closed is simply false. I've cited hard, in some cases physical (as in physics) reasons for why there won't be a lower-level bytecode standard for browser-based VMs any time soon. I'm not blowing smoke. http://www.aminutewithbrendan.com/pages/20101122 http://www.aminutewithbrendan.com/pages/20101122 A high level bytecode sounds a lot like minified JS source, with a relatively-few extensions to the standard language. Extending is easier than replacing or setting up a new, parallel cross-browser standard. Your inflamed sense of grievance at "Mozilla" is misplaced. Mozilla has no control other than what users of our software delegate to us by trusting us enough to download and run our stuff. We do not have hundreds of millions in our browser advertising budgets. We do not have billions of revenue with which to influence people or pay for attention and distribution. If we are really in the way of Web standards, I'll personally pull the plug.

by sambeau 15y ago

ConstantineXVI 15y ago

Oddly enough, if in-browser Java had "won", we'd already have such a thing.

sambeau 15y ago
True. But in return we would have had to endure 10 years of in-browser Java.
- tolmasky 15y ago
  We would have just built something else on the JVM. You could be writing Ruby in the browser with JRuby, or Python in the browser with Jython, or Scala. This would be a much better world (tooling and performance-wise) than the current compile to high level JS strategy.
- wavephorm 15y ago
  As opposed to 10 years of stagnant JavaScript, and a conversion en-masse of all all video, audio, game content to Flash?? It was really sad to see everybody moving to Flash JavaScript could've done video/audio and games a long time ago.
leoc 15y ago
Not necessarily - in that case, we might still be stuck with the Sun-versus-MS and Sun-versus-the-world games over control of the JVM, and with the JVM's startup-time problem. Though the startup-time problem was so bad that it's hard to imagine in-browser Java winning with the problem still there.

paulkoer 15y ago

+1000. Give us a platform that people can grow languages on! Maybe the DartVM could become something like what you describe in the same sense as the JVM/CLR is a platform for many languages now? But since their pushing the language it doesn't seem to be the stated goal... sad ;(

leoc 15y ago

> Google should be proposing a standard, open, byte-code compatible, Intermediate Language standard that can run Javascript and in the interim run on Javascript. > That is something I could see Mozilla and Apple getting behind. Why would you expect either Mozilla or Apple to get behind such a proposal? Apple has a powerful self-interest in making sure the Web remains a second-best app platform behind iOS and desktop OS X. Mozilla wants the Web to be the premier app platform - but it's no bloody good to Mozilla if the web is the world's #1 web platform but Mozilla has no control over it anymore. The last thing Mozilla wants to see is the Web browser become some fairly-easily-implemented, highly-interchangeable runtime platform adhering to a stable, open spec somewhere. This would, I think, be very good for the world at large, but it would undoubtedly be very bad for Mozilla - it's what is known as the commoditization of the platform. Mozilla's self-interest is served by keeping as much of the Web as possible controlled, in the minutest detail possible, by the hard-to-join club of major browser vendors. Right down to things like the lexical syntax of JavaScript. So in reality, as soon as Google proposed such an IL, Mozilla's advocates would start blowing smoke about "oh no, another Java".

BrendanEich 15y ago
"Mozilla" consists in part of a bunch of people working to write down standards precisely so new browser implementors can enter the market and interoperate. I've spent years at this for the JS standard. It's part of the inevitable commoditization you cite. Also, going back to 2006 or so when I invited pre-Google Alex Russell and other JS hackers to Ecma TC39 meetings, Mozillans including yours truly have tried to open up the standards process. Mozilla, Opera, and Apple co-founded the WHATWG and set up an open membership structure for it in 2004, to create HTML5. W3C finally relented and internalized much of that structure. So alleging that "Mozilla" is trying to keep the old boy's club closed is simply false. I've cited hard, in some cases physical (as in physics) reasons for why there won't be a lower-level bytecode standard for browser-based VMs any time soon. I'm not blowing smoke. http://www.aminutewithbrendan.com/pages/20101122 http://www.aminutewithbrendan.com/pages/20101122 A high level bytecode sounds a lot like minified JS source, with a relatively-few extensions to the standard language. Extending is easier than replacing or setting up a new, parallel cross-browser standard. Your inflamed sense of grievance at "Mozilla" is misplaced. Mozilla has no control other than what users of our software delegate to us by trusting us enough to download and run our stuff. We do not have hundreds of millions in our browser advertising budgets. We do not have billions of revenue with which to influence people or pay for attention and distribution. If we are really in the way of Web standards, I'll personally pull the plug.