4 ms·
it's depressingly good at deployment though isn't it. there's nothing easier to "port". it's the write once run anywhere that's been promised so many times. i j
by throwawayaway 12y ago
it's depressingly good at deployment though isn't it. there's nothing easier to "port". it's the write once run anywhere that's been promised so many times. i just don't feel like writing anything in it!
i don't think that this is a great article because there's a lot of bloat around the content to wade through and filter.
- jared314 12y ago> it's the write once run anywhere that's been promised so many times. It has yet to even obtain Java-level "write once, debug everywhere". Most of the people talking about "isomorphic JS" and "JS is everywhere" use, and expect, a single javascript VM implementation (V8).
- throwawayaway 12y agoi was under the impression that jQuery had taken care of that, perhaps i was mistaken. certainly a url is quicker to deploy than a jar. with the exception of jQuery: i appreciate your point, even within the same browser, different js engine versions have wildly different behaviour.