7 ms·

I think success requires much more than just some polish. Based on the information available so far, it sounds like a very unappealing platform for developers.

I think success requires much more than just some polish. Based on the information available so far, it sounds like a very unappealing platform for developers. As a developer, you're essentially stuck using HTML, CSS, and JavaScript. I think this will drive away the best developers, who much prefer to use robust, mature languages like Java or Objective-C, rather than JavaScript. Likewise, the native frameworks of Android and iOS, for example, are much more pleasant and powerful to use than HTML and CSS. It's not a recipe for success when good developers are driven away by a lousy technology stack. These are the developers that create the apps that really make a difference. Sure, a mediocre web developer may be able to create yet another to-do app for Firefox OS using HTML, CSS and JavaScript, but the value in what they produce is extremely minimal. Without good apps, users will want nothing to do with it. Even then, it looks doubtful that this will offer any real benefit over the numerous existing mobile platforms. With it so unclear why developers would want to adopt it, and with it so unclear why users would want to adopt it, it just looks so much like a dead end.

mccr8 14y ago
With or without FirefoxOS, people are developing web apps. If somebody has a nice web app already, maybe they will look into whatever little bit of adaptation is needed for FirefoxOS.
alistair77 14y ago
"when good developers are driven away by a lousy technology stack". This fear of JavaScript and a web stack says a lot more about you than the technologies. There are a huge number of good developers creating great software with these languages. Coming from a Java and C# background, learning JavaScript has been a real joy and made me a much better developer. In my experience, the best developers become productive in new languages very quickly.
- PommeDeTerre 14y ago
  Oh, I don't "fear" JavaScript. It's quite the opposite situation. I have many years of experience with it, from using it with Netscape Enterprise Server in the 1990s, to browser-based development, to more recent server-side development. Luckily, I also have many years of experience with many other programming languages and platforms. I can see quite easily how poorly JavaScript stacks up against them. As an industry, we can do better. We have done better. It's not encouraging to see Firefox OS limit itself to the worst options available, when so much better could be done.
  - alistair77 14y ago
    Given Mozilla's goals for Firefox OS can you explain how these web technologies are anything but the best option? If you think that Java, C# or Objective C would have been better choices you've misunderstood what they're trying to achieve [hint: it's about creating a mobile OS by extending the world's most widely used technology stack].
  - kybernetikos 14y ago
    By inclination I like languages that have seriously clever type systems, but I hardly ever write code in anything that is not javascript these days, and the reason for that is that javascript can be run easily almost anywhere. I know that if I write some useful code in javascript, I will not have to rewrite it. You can't really say the same thing about any other language.
azakai 14y ago
> Based on the information available so far, it sounds like a very unappealing platform for developers. As a developer, you're essentially stuck using HTML, CSS, and JavaScript. Saying you are stuck with JS is like saying iOS developers are stuck with ARM. Yes, underlying it all is ARM or JS on the respective platforms, but you can compile many other languages into those two: C#, C++, etc.
- pifflesnort 14y ago
  Elevating JavaScript to the pantheon of machine code ignores two simple and incontrovertible facts: - JavaScript is significantly slower than ARM (even if you cheat and reference asm.js) - JavaScript is not machine code.
  - azakai 14y ago
    > - JavaScript is significantly slower than ARM How much slower, in your opinion?
    - pifflesnort 14y ago
      I don't see how opinion factors into this. Mozilla estimates a best case of 2x slower than native with asm.js, and that's with a strict JavaScript subset that defines a machine translatable byte-code, coupled with a proprietary runtime to do the translation. They estimate 10x slower without that proprietary translation. That's a ridiculous waste of resources, especially on battery-powered devices.
      - azakai 14y ago
        > Mozilla estimates a best case of 2x slower than native with asm.js No, it's ~2x slower with the early prototype. It will get significantly faster than that. > a proprietary runtime The asm.js optimizations being worked on in Firefox do not match any definition of "proprietary" I ever heard. All the work is done openly and is open source, and that includes the spec, the Firefox optimizations and the emscripten support for asm.js. > That's a ridiculous waste of resources, especially on battery-powered devices. ~2x slower than native is not optimal, sure. But it is in the same range of things like Java and C#, popular languages for mobile development (Android, Xamarin/Mono, etc.). And again, 2x is the starting point.

mccr8 14y ago

With or without FirefoxOS, people are developing web apps. If somebody has a nice web app already, maybe they will look into whatever little bit of adaptation is needed for FirefoxOS.

alistair77 14y ago

"when good developers are driven away by a lousy technology stack". This fear of JavaScript and a web stack says a lot more about you than the technologies. There are a huge number of good developers creating great software with these languages. Coming from a Java and C# background, learning JavaScript has been a real joy and made me a much better developer. In my experience, the best developers become productive in new languages very quickly.

PommeDeTerre 14y ago
Oh, I don't "fear" JavaScript. It's quite the opposite situation. I have many years of experience with it, from using it with Netscape Enterprise Server in the 1990s, to browser-based development, to more recent server-side development. Luckily, I also have many years of experience with many other programming languages and platforms. I can see quite easily how poorly JavaScript stacks up against them. As an industry, we can do better. We have done better. It's not encouraging to see Firefox OS limit itself to the worst options available, when so much better could be done.
- alistair77 14y ago
  Given Mozilla's goals for Firefox OS can you explain how these web technologies are anything but the best option? If you think that Java, C# or Objective C would have been better choices you've misunderstood what they're trying to achieve [hint: it's about creating a mobile OS by extending the world's most widely used technology stack].
- kybernetikos 14y ago
  By inclination I like languages that have seriously clever type systems, but I hardly ever write code in anything that is not javascript these days, and the reason for that is that javascript can be run easily almost anywhere. I know that if I write some useful code in javascript, I will not have to rewrite it. You can't really say the same thing about any other language.

azakai 14y ago

> Based on the information available so far, it sounds like a very unappealing platform for developers. As a developer, you're essentially stuck using HTML, CSS, and JavaScript. Saying you are stuck with JS is like saying iOS developers are stuck with ARM. Yes, underlying it all is ARM or JS on the respective platforms, but you can compile many other languages into those two: C#, C++, etc.

pifflesnort 14y ago
Elevating JavaScript to the pantheon of machine code ignores two simple and incontrovertible facts: - JavaScript is significantly slower than ARM (even if you cheat and reference asm.js) - JavaScript is not machine code.
- azakai 14y ago
  > - JavaScript is significantly slower than ARM How much slower, in your opinion?
  - pifflesnort 14y ago
    I don't see how opinion factors into this. Mozilla estimates a best case of 2x slower than native with asm.js, and that's with a strict JavaScript subset that defines a machine translatable byte-code, coupled with a proprietary runtime to do the translation. They estimate 10x slower without that proprietary translation. That's a ridiculous waste of resources, especially on battery-powered devices.
    - azakai 14y ago
      > Mozilla estimates a best case of 2x slower than native with asm.js No, it's ~2x slower with the early prototype. It will get significantly faster than that. > a proprietary runtime The asm.js optimizations being worked on in Firefox do not match any definition of "proprietary" I ever heard. All the work is done openly and is open source, and that includes the spec, the Firefox optimizations and the emscripten support for asm.js. > That's a ridiculous waste of resources, especially on battery-powered devices. ~2x slower than native is not optimal, sure. But it is in the same range of things like Java and C#, popular languages for mobile development (Android, Xamarin/Mono, etc.). And again, 2x is the starting point.