3 ms·
It seems that the primary method of disagreement used by only-JavaScript-in-the-browser advocates is as follows: 1. Talk about the "open web"; 2. Tell you to c
by dhconnelly 15y ago
It seems that the primary method of disagreement used by only-JavaScript-in-the-browser advocates is as follows:
1. Talk about the "open web";
2. Tell you to compile to JavaScript.
I really don't understand why this is considered a reasonable response to people who just want to build things with the language they prefer, without being treated as second-class citizens.
- Joeboy 15y ago> being treated as second-class citizens That's a ridiculous and off-putting way of wording your complaint.
- ttt_ 15y agoMaybe because people are afraid to end up with a fragmented web all over again. Preference of language shouldn't really be a factor. The real question is that any change must be properly standardized and implemented by all browser vendors else you end up with "This webpage is written in python and is only supported by Chrome 39+ and Firefox 43+". Does using your prefered language really outvalue that? I think the bytecode argument is a more feasable one, as long as it could somehow be compiled to javascript and support older browser versions effortlessly.
- steve-howard 15y agoVersion fragmentation is nearly a non-issue if browser updates are automatic by default and non-intrusive. Firefox is slowly catching up, and Chrome is very good at this. IE would obviously need to substantially change its release cycle if it lost enough market share, though I imagine that won't happen for quite some time.
- tomjen3 15y agoActually it would be great if it broke the old webbrowsers -- that way we might finally get people to something modern. But failing that I would be okay with it compilling down to javascript.