5 ms·

>No-one really likes the situation That isn't true. Mozilla likes the situation. That is why they are pushing Javascript so damn hard: as the only language for

>No-one really likes the situation That isn't true. Mozilla likes the situation. That is why they are pushing Javascript so damn hard: as the only language for the web, as the only language for apps, as the only language your phone can run, as the only language your tablet can run and so on. If Mozilla disliked Javascript why would they create an operating system that forces you to use Javascript? None of the backwards compatibility concerns apply there. It's just politics and a power grab. If all user facing software has to run inside the Javascript sandbox then the people that control that sandbox are given massive power. That is why Mozilla and Google want a web-app future. It hands them the keys to everything. In a web app world if, for example, Microsoft brings out a new input device (like kinect), nobody will actually be able to develop software for it until the gatekeepers of the 'web standards' decide to design an API for it. Since those gatekeepers are mostly Microsofts competitors they would likely block it if they saw it as any kind of threat, or at least till they had developed their own competing version. Javascript/web standards based OSs will be a huge roadblock to innovation.

exDM69 13y ago
> That isn't true. Mozilla likes the situation. That is why they are pushing Javascript so damn hard: as the only language for the web, as the only language for apps, as the only language your phone can run, as the only language your tablet can run and so on. If Mozilla disliked Javascript why would they create an operating system that forces you to use Javascript? None of the backwards compatibility concerns apply there. What options does Mozilla or any other individual company have here? I think that if they were truly happy with JavaScript, they wouldn't be putting effort into ASM.js and Rust? Mozilla isn't really pushing JavaScript as the "only language for the web", but they probably are recognizing the fact that they are unable to kill JavaScript or even provide an alternative because that would require all major browser vendors to co-operate (which is not impossible) and all the users to upgrade their browsers (which seems to be impossible judging by the popularity of old browsers like ie6, ie7). What comes to Firefox OS, it's perhaps a little awkward choice but they are trying to leverage existing web based technologies. Starting from scratch and introducing a new environment with a new programming language would set them behind in terms of time to market and money required to develop the system. I haven't seen anyone from Mozilla saying out loud that they love JavaScript and they think it's the way forward. > It's just politics and a power grab. If all user facing software has to run inside the Javascript sandbox then the people that control that sandbox are given massive power. While this is not entirely impossible, I think the real reason is that there is a JavaScript legacy and abandoning it would be expensive. And Mozilla has invested years of effort and tons of money in making the "web platform" better. Your impression of this situation is different from mine, and neither of our opinions really matter. You should probably refrain from pushing your personal views as if they were facts.
pgeorgi 13y ago
"In a web app world if, for example, Microsoft brings out a new input device (like kinect), nobody will actually be able to develop software for it until the gatekeepers of the 'web standards' decide to design an API for it." What stops Microsoft (in this example) to implement kinect support in IE as a new API, propose it as a standard and evolve the interface like every other web API - that is, in parallel to the standardization process? If it's any good, Google and Mozilla will scramble to implement it to prevent users to defect to IE.
- anon1385 13y ago
  Firstly they would be pilloried for having a "proprietary" browser and being "anti-standards". More importantly, IE can't run on your Firefox OS phone or your ChromeOS chromebook or your iOS tablet. 'Deflecting' to IE would mean buying entirely new hardware (and in the case of phones, probably a new multi-year contract). That isn't an accident. The best way to ensure your browser remains relevant (i.e. you retain veto power over any new standards) is to create OSs that can only run a single browser. You then have millions of users that are locked into your browser to use as bargaining chips. A world where all user-facing software has to target a single standard gives vast power to the owners of that standard. Very few people seem to be considering this problem. No matter how benevolent you think Google or Mozilla are today, it is madness to place so much trust in them. Their interests do not align with yours, and there are very few checks or balances to the system: end users or independent developers have basically zero say in the web standards process.
BrendanEich 13y ago
We work well with Microsoft on Web standards, they are at least as engaged now as their competitors. We are actually having problems getting the missing device and system APIs standardized because Google wants to wait and do its own Chrome-only thing for a while, and Apple is as usual missing in action. Samsung for Tizen was our best bud, and added battery status, network info, and a few others to WebKit, but then Blink forked and set the cat among the pigeons. Browser game theory makes strange bedfellows.
natural219 13y ago
You are absolutely correct in your analysis, but you seem to have ended up with a very strange conclusion. The entities who participate in the formulation of open standards do have immense power, this is correct. As opposed to...people who write proprietary software having immense power. Are you actually arguing we return to a closed-door model where individual companies like Apple or Microsoft are the gatekeepers of innovation, as opposed to a process that is at least semi-public and can theoretically be contributed to by anybody? Very strange conclusion.

exDM69 13y ago

> That isn't true. Mozilla likes the situation. That is why they are pushing Javascript so damn hard: as the only language for the web, as the only language for apps, as the only language your phone can run, as the only language your tablet can run and so on. If Mozilla disliked Javascript why would they create an operating system that forces you to use Javascript? None of the backwards compatibility concerns apply there. What options does Mozilla or any other individual company have here? I think that if they were truly happy with JavaScript, they wouldn't be putting effort into ASM.js and Rust? Mozilla isn't really pushing JavaScript as the "only language for the web", but they probably are recognizing the fact that they are unable to kill JavaScript or even provide an alternative because that would require all major browser vendors to co-operate (which is not impossible) and all the users to upgrade their browsers (which seems to be impossible judging by the popularity of old browsers like ie6, ie7). What comes to Firefox OS, it's perhaps a little awkward choice but they are trying to leverage existing web based technologies. Starting from scratch and introducing a new environment with a new programming language would set them behind in terms of time to market and money required to develop the system. I haven't seen anyone from Mozilla saying out loud that they love JavaScript and they think it's the way forward. > It's just politics and a power grab. If all user facing software has to run inside the Javascript sandbox then the people that control that sandbox are given massive power. While this is not entirely impossible, I think the real reason is that there is a JavaScript legacy and abandoning it would be expensive. And Mozilla has invested years of effort and tons of money in making the "web platform" better. Your impression of this situation is different from mine, and neither of our opinions really matter. You should probably refrain from pushing your personal views as if they were facts.

pgeorgi 13y ago

"In a web app world if, for example, Microsoft brings out a new input device (like kinect), nobody will actually be able to develop software for it until the gatekeepers of the 'web standards' decide to design an API for it." What stops Microsoft (in this example) to implement kinect support in IE as a new API, propose it as a standard and evolve the interface like every other web API - that is, in parallel to the standardization process? If it's any good, Google and Mozilla will scramble to implement it to prevent users to defect to IE.

anon1385 13y ago
Firstly they would be pilloried for having a "proprietary" browser and being "anti-standards". More importantly, IE can't run on your Firefox OS phone or your ChromeOS chromebook or your iOS tablet. 'Deflecting' to IE would mean buying entirely new hardware (and in the case of phones, probably a new multi-year contract). That isn't an accident. The best way to ensure your browser remains relevant (i.e. you retain veto power over any new standards) is to create OSs that can only run a single browser. You then have millions of users that are locked into your browser to use as bargaining chips. A world where all user-facing software has to target a single standard gives vast power to the owners of that standard. Very few people seem to be considering this problem. No matter how benevolent you think Google or Mozilla are today, it is madness to place so much trust in them. Their interests do not align with yours, and there are very few checks or balances to the system: end users or independent developers have basically zero say in the web standards process.

BrendanEich 13y ago

We work well with Microsoft on Web standards, they are at least as engaged now as their competitors. We are actually having problems getting the missing device and system APIs standardized because Google wants to wait and do its own Chrome-only thing for a while, and Apple is as usual missing in action. Samsung for Tizen was our best bud, and added battery status, network info, and a few others to WebKit, but then Blink forked and set the cat among the pigeons. Browser game theory makes strange bedfellows.

natural219 13y ago

You are absolutely correct in your analysis, but you seem to have ended up with a very strange conclusion. The entities who participate in the formulation of open standards do have immense power, this is correct. As opposed to...people who write proprietary software having immense power. Are you actually arguing we return to a closed-door model where individual companies like Apple or Microsoft are the gatekeepers of innovation, as opposed to a process that is at least semi-public and can theoretically be contributed to by anybody? Very strange conclusion.