7 ms·

>Due to the fact that JavaScript’s browser monopoly is hopefully coming to an end very soon.. Aaand that's where I stopped reading. Try not to kick your articl

>Due to the fact that JavaScript’s browser monopoly is hopefully coming to an end very soon.. Aaand that's where I stopped reading. Try not to kick your articles off with dogmatic statements like this and, if you have to, at least make sure they're factual.

farmdve 12y ago
I stopped reading when he started calling JavaScript, BrowserScript. The entire article was in a huge font, on my 1080p screen it was difficult to read.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  Technically, he wasn't calling JavaScript "BrowserScript", but instead using "BrowserScript" as overly-clever newly-minted jargon for client-side code in general, independent of language. Still, both that usage and the stated reason for it were pretty poorly conceived and distracting.
  - enyo 12y ago
    "overly-clever"? Not sure about that... BrowserScript seemed to fit. I didn't expect to get whipped that much over it. Maybe I'll just change it back to JavaScript and add a note that this can be applied to any other browser side language. I don't quite see what the big fuss is though, to be honest.
codingdave 12y ago
You got farther than me. My entire browser window was filled with a headline and a background image, so I just moved on.
- remon 12y ago
  I'm glad I wasn't the only one that needed a few seconds to understand what was going on. I didn't bother reading it.
  - yc1010 12y ago
    This fullpage image + small amount of text is a fad it will pass just as scrolling text went away in the 90s and "intro" pages when away in 00s (god i feel old) In this case the background image adds absolutely nothing to the user experience or conveys what the content is about, if anything its quite an example of bad design and interferes with the user for no good reason! The "web developer" has added it just because he could not because there is any good and thought out reason to use this "image page monstrocity"
    - enyo 12y ago
      I'm sorry you feel that way. This is my personal website. I also use it to showcase my photographs. I agree that they don't add anything to the content.
      - yc1010 12y ago
        Then its ok :) Its just funny seeing same mistakes being repeated and various "trends" employed by web developers for no good reason other than "because we can, and it looks cool", but thats ok for personal projects since you are exploring what can be done.
      - rabbyte 12y ago
        The people who started this comment thread claim to have skipped your content so they could critique everything else. I wouldn't take it too seriously. I found your content cleanly presented and interesting.
        enyo 12y ago
        Thank you.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- annnnd 12y ago
  You have a problem with my username? ;) EDIT: OK, I see, he misspelled it...
  - billpg 12y ago
    If I need to explain a joke, it probably wasn't very funny. I'll walk away from this one. This is just to say it was nothing to do with your username.
    - annnnd 12y ago
      Just for info: I understood your joke, I just made my own on top of it. :)
rnhmjoj 12y ago
What's the problem? Wouldn't be better to have other choices? I think monopoly is never a good thing, especially for software.
- apetresc 12y ago
  It's not a question of whether it'd be "better" or not, it's a question of whether it's actually going to happen. Do you _honestly_ believe Dart is going to replace or threaten Javascript "very soon"? Enough to be willing to bet on that?
  - rnhmjoj 12y ago
    I thought it was more a hope than a speculation.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  The problem is confusing wishes with facts.
- szatkus 12y ago
  Past 10 years I saw many statements that "technology X will be soon dead". Most of those Xs are still alive and in good shapes.
  - enyo 12y ago
    You are very mistaken if you think that I wish for JavaScript to die. It is neither my wish nor my forecast. I just hope that other languages will make it into the browser at one time.
    - dragonwriter 12y ago
      Other languages have made it into the browser, in much the same way that other languages than raw machine code have made it into computers in general. JS is the common compilation target of the web, and also happens to be a language that many programmers find tolerable enough to use directly. As nice as it is to have multiple options of source languages for the web, there's a lot less value in having multiple options for compilation targets, as well as greater costs (particularly given how tied execution engines are to browser engines, so that you really need a separate engine for each compilation target for each browser engine. Having a reliable, good-enough cross-browser target language that is a the intersection of the JS supported by each browser engine is easier than doing that same thing for multiple different target languages. A new target language is going to have to offer really compelling improvements in execution to make sense to compete with JS in that role on the web.
enyo 12y ago
In my opinion, Dart is the first browser side language, that has any possibility of changing this monopoly. I don't think that it's a good thing that JavaScript is the only language you get in the browser, but that has nothing to do with dogma (I coded a lot in JavaScript, and it has it's place). As stated below, I will probably remove this Introduction, since it seems to distract from what this article is about. I hope you consider reading the article anyway.
- drinchev 12y ago
  When you put "Google" in a sentence with Dart, "Monopoly" starts to sound different. I read your sentence as : "Google is changing the monopoly of JavaScript by implementing the Dart VM in their own browser." As far as I know community doesn't care much about Dart [1] and they are concentrating on further enhancement on ECMAScript. [1] : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dart_%28programming_language%29#Browser_adoption http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dart_%28programming_language%29...
  - rabbyte 12y ago
    Does this impact your opinion at all? http://news.dartlang.org/2013/12/ecma-forms-tc52-for-dart-standardization.html http://news.dartlang.org/2013/12/ecma-forms-tc52-for-dart-st...
    - drinchev 12y ago
      Yep, but that doesn't mean much. You can take a look at : http://www.infoworld.com/article/2608454/web-development/google-s-dart-language-is-approved----but-adoption-is-no-guarantee.html http://www.infoworld.com/article/2608454/web-development/goo... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dart_%28programming_language%29#Criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dart_%28programming_language%2...
  - WhyYes 12y ago
    Glad its happen tbh I hate JS and so do many others. Its a fact JS is slowing down the web.

farmdve 12y ago

I stopped reading when he started calling JavaScript, BrowserScript. The entire article was in a huge font, on my 1080p screen it was difficult to read.

dragonwriter 12y ago
Technically, he wasn't calling JavaScript "BrowserScript", but instead using "BrowserScript" as overly-clever newly-minted jargon for client-side code in general, independent of language. Still, both that usage and the stated reason for it were pretty poorly conceived and distracting.
- enyo 12y ago
  "overly-clever"? Not sure about that... BrowserScript seemed to fit. I didn't expect to get whipped that much over it. Maybe I'll just change it back to JavaScript and add a note that this can be applied to any other browser side language. I don't quite see what the big fuss is though, to be honest.

codingdave 12y ago

You got farther than me. My entire browser window was filled with a headline and a background image, so I just moved on.

remon 12y ago
I'm glad I wasn't the only one that needed a few seconds to understand what was going on. I didn't bother reading it.
- yc1010 12y ago
  This fullpage image + small amount of text is a fad it will pass just as scrolling text went away in the 90s and "intro" pages when away in 00s (god i feel old) In this case the background image adds absolutely nothing to the user experience or conveys what the content is about, if anything its quite an example of bad design and interferes with the user for no good reason! The "web developer" has added it just because he could not because there is any good and thought out reason to use this "image page monstrocity"
  - enyo 12y ago
    I'm sorry you feel that way. This is my personal website. I also use it to showcase my photographs. I agree that they don't add anything to the content.
    - yc1010 12y ago
      Then its ok :) Its just funny seeing same mistakes being repeated and various "trends" employed by web developers for no good reason other than "because we can, and it looks cool", but thats ok for personal projects since you are exploring what can be done.
    - rabbyte 12y ago
      The people who started this comment thread claim to have skipped your content so they could critique everything else. I wouldn't take it too seriously. I found your content cleanly presented and interesting.
      - enyo 12y ago
        Thank you.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

annnnd 12y ago
You have a problem with my username? ;) EDIT: OK, I see, he misspelled it...
- billpg 12y ago
  If I need to explain a joke, it probably wasn't very funny. I'll walk away from this one. This is just to say it was nothing to do with your username.
  - annnnd 12y ago
    Just for info: I understood your joke, I just made my own on top of it. :)

rnhmjoj 12y ago

What's the problem? Wouldn't be better to have other choices? I think monopoly is never a good thing, especially for software.

apetresc 12y ago
It's not a question of whether it'd be "better" or not, it's a question of whether it's actually going to happen. Do you _honestly_ believe Dart is going to replace or threaten Javascript "very soon"? Enough to be willing to bet on that?
- rnhmjoj 12y ago
  I thought it was more a hope than a speculation.
dragonwriter 12y ago
The problem is confusing wishes with facts.
szatkus 12y ago
Past 10 years I saw many statements that "technology X will be soon dead". Most of those Xs are still alive and in good shapes.
- enyo 12y ago
  You are very mistaken if you think that I wish for JavaScript to die. It is neither my wish nor my forecast. I just hope that other languages will make it into the browser at one time.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    Other languages have made it into the browser, in much the same way that other languages than raw machine code have made it into computers in general. JS is the common compilation target of the web, and also happens to be a language that many programmers find tolerable enough to use directly. As nice as it is to have multiple options of source languages for the web, there's a lot less value in having multiple options for compilation targets, as well as greater costs (particularly given how tied execution engines are to browser engines, so that you really need a separate engine for each compilation target for each browser engine. Having a reliable, good-enough cross-browser target language that is a the intersection of the JS supported by each browser engine is easier than doing that same thing for multiple different target languages. A new target language is going to have to offer really compelling improvements in execution to make sense to compete with JS in that role on the web.

enyo 12y ago

In my opinion, Dart is the first browser side language, that has any possibility of changing this monopoly. I don't think that it's a good thing that JavaScript is the only language you get in the browser, but that has nothing to do with dogma (I coded a lot in JavaScript, and it has it's place). As stated below, I will probably remove this Introduction, since it seems to distract from what this article is about. I hope you consider reading the article anyway.

drinchev 12y ago
When you put "Google" in a sentence with Dart, "Monopoly" starts to sound different. I read your sentence as : "Google is changing the monopoly of JavaScript by implementing the Dart VM in their own browser." As far as I know community doesn't care much about Dart [1] and they are concentrating on further enhancement on ECMAScript. [1] : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dart_%28programming_language%29#Browser_adoption http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dart_%28programming_language%29...
- rabbyte 12y ago
  Does this impact your opinion at all? http://news.dartlang.org/2013/12/ecma-forms-tc52-for-dart-standardization.html http://news.dartlang.org/2013/12/ecma-forms-tc52-for-dart-st...
  - drinchev 12y ago
    Yep, but that doesn't mean much. You can take a look at : http://www.infoworld.com/article/2608454/web-development/google-s-dart-language-is-approved----but-adoption-is-no-guarantee.html http://www.infoworld.com/article/2608454/web-development/goo... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dart_%28programming_language%29#Criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dart_%28programming_language%2...
- WhyYes 12y ago
  Glad its happen tbh I hate JS and so do many others. Its a fact JS is slowing down the web.