3 ms·
Woah! We're playing the Java 1.0 card??? Java is my language of choice most of the time so I'm not hating, but seriously, Java 1.0? I think you might be nitpi
by bcg1 12y ago
Woah! We're playing the Java 1.0 card??? Java is my language of choice most of the time so I'm not hating, but seriously, Java 1.0?
I think you might be nitpicking... JavaScript is perfectly usable as is. They even ship a js interpreter with OpenJDK since 1.6... why bother if Java is so much better and easier to use? And also conflating a bug in Chrome with a language deficiency seems fallacious.
- lmm 12y ago> They even ship a js interpreter with OpenJDK since 1.6... why bother if Java is so much better and easier to use? Because > And also conflating a bug in Chrome with a language deficiency seems fallacious. It's not a Chrome bug, it's a missing feature in every existing Javascript implementation that only Chrome is bothering to add (though hopefully other implementers will follow suit shortly)
- lmm 12y agoFirst was meant to be: because there's real value in using the same language on the server and the client (if only for parts of the code), and on the client it has to be javascript. (Also because certain libraries, in particular for async, simply don't exist for Java because the sync version is "good enough")