3 ms·
Yes. In some ways I think we're still in a very primative kind of level for web development. Either you do it by hand, tweaking each individual parameter like
by deckiedan 13y ago
Yes. In some ways I think we're still in a very primative kind of level for web development. Either you do it by hand, tweaking each individual parameter like the old demoscene, and making it fast and amazingly small, or else you write huge chunky slow web apps, or more usually, something in the middle.
I feel like the big thing I'm missing is smart compilers that can take web app concepts, and turn them into extremely optimsed 'raw' HTML/CSS/JS/SQL/backend. All of the current frameworks still use hand written frequently very bloated or inelegant hand written CSS & HTML, and still require thinking manually about how and when to do AJAX when it's least offensive to the user. Maybe something like yesod ( http://www.yesodweb.com/ http://www.yesodweb.com/ ) or something like that is heading in the right direction. http://pyjs.org/ http://pyjs.org/ has some nice ideas too... But I'm thinking of something bigger than the individual technologies like coffeescript or LESS... Something that doesn't 'compile to JS', or 'compile to CSS', but 'compile to stack'. I dunno. Maybe I'm just rambling.
- aaronblohowiak 13y agothe "sufficiently smart compiler" is kind of like "world peace"; something to work towards, but i doubt we'll have it this lifetime. http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?SufficientlySmartCompiler http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?SufficientlySmartCompiler
- derefr 13y ago"Sufficiently Smart Compiler", like most AI, is a concept with constantly shifting goal-posts. As soon as compilers can do something, we no longer consider that thing "smart." Consider variable lifetime analysis, or stream fusion -- a decade ago, these would be considered "sufficiently smart compiler" features. Today, they're just things we expect (of actually-decent compilers), and "sufficiently smart" means something even cleverer.
- calinet6 13y agoAnd, given those optimizations, the programmers get sufficiently dumber to compensate, resulting in a constant or decreasing level of performance. That's gotta be a law codified somewhere, right?