Comments on: The Trouble with AJAX.. http://neosmart.net/blog/2006/the-trouble-with-ajax/ Connecting Ideas Sun, 08 Nov 2009 03:11:16 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Osaris http://neosmart.net/blog/2006/the-trouble-with-ajax/#comment-289091 Osaris Mon, 27 Oct 2008 13:11:43 +0000 http://neosmart.net/blog/archives/52#comment-289091 VBS FTW =) VBS FTW =)

]]> By: Firefox: The Trouble With AJAX http://neosmart.net/blog/2006/the-trouble-with-ajax/#comment-3489 Firefox: The Trouble With AJAX Mon, 31 Jul 2006 17:35:15 +0000 http://neosmart.net/blog/archives/52#comment-3489 <!--%kramer-ref-pre%-->[...] Read more from this blogger:The Trouble with AJAX..   [...]<!--%kramer-ref-post%--> [...] Read more from this blogger:The Trouble with AJAX..   [...]

]]> By: JavaScript Alternatives - Neowin.net http://neosmart.net/blog/2006/the-trouble-with-ajax/#comment-3187 JavaScript Alternatives - Neowin.net Mon, 17 Jul 2006 12:55:30 +0000 http://neosmart.net/blog/archives/52#comment-3187 <!--%kramer-ref-pre%-->[...] I know (IMG:style_emoticons/default/sad.gif)But maybe we can make AJAX 2.0 with CSS instead of JSThe only reason I have not jumped to AJAX yet is just that... But read the comments on the link below.. yawnmoth has some code for using AJAX without JS! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/yes.gif) The Trouble with AJAX [...]<!--%kramer-ref-post%--> [...] I know (IMG:style_emoticons/default/sad.gif)But maybe we can make AJAX 2.0 with CSS instead of JSThe only reason I have not jumped to AJAX yet is just that… But read the comments on the link below.. yawnmoth has some code for using AJAX without JS! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/yes.gif) The Trouble with AJAX [...]

]]> By: What XSS isn’t at Ramblings of a Computer Guru http://neosmart.net/blog/2006/the-trouble-with-ajax/#comment-2304 What XSS isn’t at Ramblings of a Computer Guru Fri, 23 Jun 2006 12:17:11 +0000 http://neosmart.net/blog/archives/52#comment-2304 [...] XSS is not the problem. JavaScript is (just for the record, at NeoSmart we feel JavaScript is more of a headache than it is a life-saver..), and XSS is but a result of the (many) inherint security holes in JavaScript and not in the package itself! XSS is a tool like mentioned before, nothing more nothing less. But that fact has implications that render the entire foundation of XSS “insecurities” worthless. [...] [...] XSS is not the problem. JavaScript is (just for the record, at NeoSmart we feel JavaScript is more of a headache than it is a life-saver..), and XSS is but a result of the (many) inherint security holes in JavaScript and not in the package itself! XSS is a tool like mentioned before, nothing more nothing less. But that fact has implications that render the entire foundation of XSS “insecurities” worthless. [...]

]]> By: Anne Onyme http://neosmart.net/blog/2006/the-trouble-with-ajax/#comment-2296 Anne Onyme Fri, 23 Jun 2006 09:33:38 +0000 http://neosmart.net/blog/archives/52#comment-2296 Muaah! ah! ah ah! *YOU* are implying that VBScript is a better language than JavaScript ? In what grounds ? Exception handling, perhaps ? Please, RTFM, before trying to appear the guru you aren't. Muaah! ah! ah ah!

*YOU* are implying that VBScript is a better language than JavaScript ?
In what grounds ?

Exception handling, perhaps ?

Please, RTFM, before trying to appear the guru you aren’t.

]]> By: Read What You Write First http://neosmart.net/blog/2006/the-trouble-with-ajax/#comment-2293 Read What You Write First Fri, 23 Jun 2006 07:31:09 +0000 http://neosmart.net/blog/archives/52#comment-2293 and more importantly, think! I can't believe that there are still people who advocate VBScript, and over a perfectly well and nice language called JavaScript! (Correct me if I'm wrong, but) I think all the problems you mention are in the _implementations_ of the language, not in the language itself. Not even the in whole implementation, only in its relation to the DOM. You can think whatever works for you, but it's bad programming that gives a language a bad reputation (except, Javascript doesn't have a bad reputation.) That is, it's "guru" web administrators like you that are responsible for writing correct code when given a sufficiently flexible and powerful language like JavaScript. -yzt and more importantly, think!

I can’t believe that there are still people who advocate VBScript, and over a perfectly well and nice language called JavaScript!

(Correct me if I’m wrong, but) I think all the problems you mention are in the _implementations_ of the language, not in the language itself. Not even the in whole implementation, only in its relation to the DOM.

You can think whatever works for you, but it’s bad programming that gives a language a bad reputation (except, Javascript doesn’t have a bad reputation.) That is, it’s “guru” web administrators like you that are responsible for writing correct code when given a sufficiently flexible and powerful language like JavaScript.

-yzt

]]> By: Not a guru, but neither are you http://neosmart.net/blog/2006/the-trouble-with-ajax/#comment-2269 Not a guru, but neither are you Fri, 23 Jun 2006 03:19:21 +0000 http://neosmart.net/blog/archives/52#comment-2269 This is hilarious. Then again, this is what blogging is all about: unknowledgeable windbags spewing misinformation for consumption by other unknowledgeable windbags. Firefox is involved in the war against JS? Do you realize that most of Firefox's user interface is WRITTEN in JavaScript, and the entire Mozilla XUL project has JavaScript at its heart? The language isn't "buggy." First of all, a language can't even BE buggy. The interpreter, compiler, runtime environment, or programs written in the language can be buggy, but it doesn't even make sense to describe the language itself as buggy. It'd be nice if you didn't label yourself a "computer guru." The smartest guys out there don't call themselves "gurus." But hey, I guess it's a pretty good sign of whether you really know what you're talking about. This is hilarious. Then again, this is what blogging is all about: unknowledgeable windbags spewing misinformation for consumption by other unknowledgeable windbags.

Firefox is involved in the war against JS? Do you realize that most of Firefox’s user interface is WRITTEN in JavaScript, and the entire Mozilla XUL project has JavaScript at its heart?

The language isn’t “buggy.” First of all, a language can’t even BE buggy. The interpreter, compiler, runtime environment, or programs written in the language can be buggy, but it doesn’t even make sense to describe the language itself as buggy.

It’d be nice if you didn’t label yourself a “computer guru.” The smartest guys out there don’t call themselves “gurus.” But hey, I guess it’s a pretty good sign of whether you really know what you’re talking about.

]]> By: Jon http://neosmart.net/blog/2006/the-trouble-with-ajax/#comment-2118 Jon Sun, 18 Jun 2006 19:59:46 +0000 http://neosmart.net/blog/archives/52#comment-2118 stupidist article I read in a long time. Microsoft is supporting javascript and and generates it through ASP.net as the code generator. Javascript is growing to be the universal language of the future because of AJAX and the MS version of AJAX called Atlas stupidist article I read in a long time.

Microsoft is supporting javascript and and generates it through ASP.net as the code generator.

Javascript is growing to be the universal language of the future because of AJAX and the MS version of AJAX called Atlas

]]> By: NeoSmart Live! at Ramblings of a Computer Guru http://neosmart.net/blog/2006/the-trouble-with-ajax/#comment-1613 NeoSmart Live! at Ramblings of a Computer Guru Wed, 31 May 2006 11:36:14 +0000 http://neosmart.net/blog/archives/52#comment-1613 [...] AJAX certainly is cool, but only if it’s not overdone, and it’s used to make something better, not just for the hell of it - and especially if the JavaScript involved is kept down to a minimum (read more about our hatred for JS). A long time ago we had a couple of AJAX features on the blog, but we took them down when we realized it was too much and too incompatible. But now we’re back, and we want to know what you think. [...] [...] AJAX certainly is cool, but only if it’s not overdone, and it’s used to make something better, not just for the hell of it – and especially if the JavaScript involved is kept down to a minimum (read more about our hatred for JS). A long time ago we had a couple of AJAX features on the blog, but we took them down when we realized it was too much and too incompatible. But now we’re back, and we want to know what you think. [...]

]]> By: Computer Guru http://neosmart.net/blog/2006/the-trouble-with-ajax/#comment-114 Computer Guru Fri, 06 Jan 2006 08:46:39 +0000 http://neosmart.net/blog/archives/52#comment-114 labda the ultimate is Nice!!! thanks! TDD seems like a good idea, but I forsee a <strong>very</strong> long road trying to implement it for the masses :( thanks for the links (again :D) labda the ultimate is Nice!!! thanks!

TDD seems like a good idea, but I forsee a very long road trying to implement it for the masses :(

thanks for the links (again :D )

]]> By: David Findley http://neosmart.net/blog/2006/the-trouble-with-ajax/#comment-110 David Findley Wed, 04 Jan 2006 17:17:42 +0000 http://neosmart.net/blog/archives/52#comment-110 "But buggy code should not compile in the first place" Ahh, now you are hitting on something. This is actually a subject of much debate in programming language circles. Currently there is alot of debate over static types vs dynamic types. If you really want to geek out over programming languages checkout http://lambda-the-ultimate.org Most of the time the discussions there just go right over the top of my head. But sometimes there are some real gems. Like this one: http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/view/100#comment-1194 scroll down to Johnny Come Lately's post. He does a great job of pointing out the relitive merits of compiled vs script languages. I especially like the cresent wrench analogy. Also another great resource is http://www.testdriven.com/ Test driven development (TDD) can be used with both scripting and compiled languages. In script languages it can geatly reduce bugs. It is worth noting that MS has stated that they are using TDD on all the JavaScript code they are writing for Atlas. I'm still trying to adapt to TDD as a methodolgy for developing code. It takes concious effort. But I'm getting better. “But buggy code should not compile in the first place”

Ahh, now you are hitting on something. This is actually a subject of much debate in programming language circles. Currently there is alot of debate over static types vs dynamic types.

If you really want to geek out over programming languages checkout http://lambda-the-ultimate.org Most of the time the discussions there just go right over the top of my head. But sometimes there are some real gems. Like this one: http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/view/100#comment-1194 scroll down to Johnny Come Lately’s post. He does a great job of pointing out the relitive merits of compiled vs script languages. I especially like the cresent wrench analogy.

Also another great resource is http://www.testdriven.com/ Test driven development (TDD) can be used with both scripting and compiled languages. In script languages it can geatly reduce bugs. It is worth noting that MS has stated that they are using TDD on all the JavaScript code they are writing for Atlas.

I’m still trying to adapt to TDD as a methodolgy for developing code. It takes concious effort. But I’m getting better.

]]> By: Computer Guru http://neosmart.net/blog/2006/the-trouble-with-ajax/#comment-109 Computer Guru Wed, 04 Jan 2006 15:52:33 +0000 http://neosmart.net/blog/archives/52#comment-109 Thanks for helping me out guys... I definitely understand your points much more clearly now ;) I guess the DOM <strong>is</strong> the guilty party afterall... But buggy code should not compile in the first place, and IMO it <em>is</em> the "language's duty" to ensure the availability of proper APIs and plugins, at least for the major languages... Thanks for all the help David.. Those links are invaluable... especially the PDF file, it seems to be <strong>exactly</strong> what I am looking for! Thanks for helping me out guys… I definitely understand your points much
more clearly now ;) I guess the DOM is the guilty party
afterall… But buggy code should not compile in the first place, and IMO
it is the “language’s duty” to ensure the availability of proper
APIs and plugins, at least for the major languages… Thanks for all the
help David.. Those links are invaluable… especially the PDF file, it
seems to be exactly what I am looking for!

]]> By: Chris Kowalske http://neosmart.net/blog/2006/the-trouble-with-ajax/#comment-108 Chris Kowalske Wed, 04 Jan 2006 15:02:53 +0000 http://neosmart.net/blog/archives/52#comment-108 <blockquote>Technically JavaScript is already a crossbrowser implementation.. but it was badly implemented by web browser designers, badly used by website designers, and badly bloated by its authors?</blockquote> I think you are badly mistaken the DOM and JavaScript the language. The problems you seem to be trying to convey all seem to be pointing towards the difference in browser DOMs. It's the implementation of JavaScript code that handles manipulation of these different DOMs that you want to say is buggy/incompatible code. Blame the DOMs, not the language!

Technically JavaScript is already a crossbrowser implementation.. but it was badly implemented by web browser designers, badly used by website designers, and badly bloated by its authors?

I think you are badly mistaken the DOM and JavaScript the language. The problems you seem to be trying to convey all seem to be pointing towards the difference in browser DOMs. It’s the implementation of JavaScript code that handles manipulation of these different DOMs that you want to say is buggy/incompatible code.

Blame the DOMs, not the language!

]]> By: David Findley http://neosmart.net/blog/2006/the-trouble-with-ajax/#comment-106 David Findley Wed, 04 Jan 2006 14:29:46 +0000 http://neosmart.net/blog/archives/52#comment-106 I think when you say: "Technically JavaScript is already a crossbrowser implementation.. but it was badly implemented by web browser designers, badly used by website designers, and badly bloated by its authors?" You mean that the browser itself badly implemented by web browser designers. It sure sounds like your issues are with the APIs/Libraries. The fact that you can't do document.all in mozilla for example is not a problem with javaScript. It has been my experience that JavaScript as a programming language has been very stable and not buggy or bloated. The language itself is relatively small. In most cases (IE/Mozilla) it is not even the same developers/teams that worked on the browser and worked on JavaScript. When DHTML came on the scene you could say that the browser wars bloated the DOM API. I would agree with that. But it hardly bloated the JavaScript language. Did you know that you could write ASP 3.0 server side code in JavaScript? If you do this, the experience is quite different than client side code. In ASP 3.0 your most likely binding JavaScript to COM objects that you write in VB or C++. The quality of that API is up to you. IE simply hosts an "ActiveScripting Engine" in the browser and exposes all the programmable parts of the browser to JavaScript (the DOM).You can host this scripting engine in your windows application and allow people to write add-ins/macros in any active scripting language (VBScript/JavaScript/Pearl/Python). I think your overall point is that JavaScript has been missused in the past. I'll admit that there is plenty of WTF code out there on the web. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. Programming is what you make of it. Anyone can write bad code in any language. Also, anyone can write good code in any language. The reason that I like JavaScript is that it brings together many concepts from many differnt programming models. If you like to program procedural code its great at just slinging out global variables and a ton of functions. If your an OO guy and you like to write objects and use encapsulation and polymorphism, JavaScript can do that to. If you like functional programming with lamdas and closures and such, JavaScript excells at that. Maybe thats part of its problem too. It's difficult to get a grasp all the faces that JavaScript can have. This by no means that it is bloated. The designers managed to enable all these programming models with a small lightweight language. Just go get a syntax hilighting JS editor and notice how few words are hilighted as keywords. The fact that the foundation of Atlas can be cast in JavaScript is a testiment to its power. Check out http://www.nikhilk.net/ for some pretty impressive info on Atlas. Oh, and JavaScript has been standardised. It's called ECMAScript and is supported by both mozilla and IE. http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/files/ECMA-ST/Ecma-262.pdf In summary, I think you are venting alot of your frustration on JavaScript instead of web browsers. All the problems and issues you have are with incomplete implementations of HTML/XHTML/CSS and DOM not JavaScript. Writing client side browser code is a pain in the rear but not because of JavaScript. JavaScript is typically the tool that you use to overcome those frustrations when you have to make something work. I think when you say:

“Technically JavaScript is already a crossbrowser implementation.. but it was badly implemented by web browser designers, badly used by website designers, and badly bloated by its authors?”

You mean that the browser itself badly implemented by web browser designers. It sure sounds like your issues are with the APIs/Libraries. The fact that you can’t do document.all in mozilla for example is not a problem with javaScript.

It has been my experience that JavaScript as a programming language has been very stable and not buggy or bloated. The language itself is relatively small. In most cases (IE/Mozilla) it is not even the same developers/teams that worked on the browser and worked on JavaScript.

When DHTML came on the scene you could say that the browser wars bloated the DOM API. I would agree with that. But it hardly bloated the JavaScript language.

Did you know that you could write ASP 3.0 server side code in JavaScript? If you do this, the experience is quite different than client side code. In ASP 3.0 your most likely binding JavaScript to COM objects that you write in VB or C++. The quality of that API is up to you.

IE simply hosts an “ActiveScripting Engine” in the browser and exposes all the programmable parts of the browser to JavaScript (the DOM).You can host this scripting engine in your windows application and allow people to write add-ins/macros in any active scripting language (VBScript/JavaScript/Pearl/Python).

I think your overall point is that JavaScript has been missused in the past. I’ll admit that there is plenty of WTF code out there on the web. Just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should. Programming is what you make of it. Anyone can write bad code in any language. Also, anyone can write good code in any language.

The reason that I like JavaScript is that it brings together many concepts from many differnt programming models. If you like to program procedural code its great at just slinging out global variables and a ton of functions. If your an OO guy and you like to write objects and use encapsulation and polymorphism, JavaScript can do that to. If you like functional programming with lamdas and closures and such, JavaScript excells at that.

Maybe thats part of its problem too. It’s difficult to get a grasp all the faces that JavaScript can have. This by no means that it is bloated. The designers managed to enable all these programming models with a small lightweight language. Just go get a syntax hilighting JS editor and notice how few words are hilighted as keywords.

The fact that the foundation of Atlas can be cast in JavaScript is a testiment to its power. Check out http://www.nikhilk.net/ for some pretty impressive info on Atlas.

Oh, and JavaScript has been standardised. It’s called ECMAScript and is supported by both mozilla and IE. http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/files/ECMA-ST/Ecma-262.pdf

In summary, I think you are venting alot of your frustration on JavaScript instead of web browsers. All the problems and issues you have are with incomplete implementations of HTML/XHTML/CSS and DOM not JavaScript. Writing client side browser code is a pain in the rear but not because of JavaScript. JavaScript is typically the tool that you use to overcome those frustrations when you have to make something work.

]]> By: Computer Guru http://neosmart.net/blog/2006/the-trouble-with-ajax/#comment-105 Computer Guru Wed, 04 Jan 2006 06:27:40 +0000 http://neosmart.net/blog/archives/52#comment-105 Hey David... Did you read my post on JS Alternatives? Because I mentioned the use Flash and even Java as alternatives for providing the nice GUI of Gmail or something without the buggy/incompatible code. I have been trying my best to keep up with Atlas.. it sure does seem to be what we are all looking and praying so hard for; but at the same time, what does 'crossbrowser' mean? Technically JavaScript is already a crossbrowser implementation.. but it was badly implemented by web browser designers, badly used by website designers, and badly bloated by its authors... I guess so long as Atlas authors quadruple check their JS side of things, and try their best to make it truly compatible it will be a much better world.. But I have now come to think (thanks to my friends at neowin) that JS needs to be either rewritten or standardized and de-bloated or replaced by a true OOP scripting language.. Especially since when you come down to it the succinctness of JavaScript and its 'universal' approach make it an excellent method of accomplishing things... More on this later (I hope :P) Thanks for the info on Atlas.. I never knew that the JS in it was hidden from the end-user.. I never noticed it before, checking it out now :D Hey David…
Did you read my post on JS Alternatives? Because I mentioned the use Flash and even Java as alternatives for providing the nice GUI of Gmail or something without the buggy/incompatible code.
I have been trying my best to keep up with Atlas.. it sure does seem to be what we are all looking and praying so hard for; but at the same time, what does ‘crossbrowser’ mean? Technically JavaScript is already a crossbrowser implementation.. but it was badly implemented by web browser designers, badly used by website designers, and badly bloated by its authors…

I guess so long as Atlas authors quadruple check their JS side of things, and try their best to make it truly compatible it will be a much better world.. But I have now come to think (thanks to my friends at neowin) that JS needs to be either rewritten or standardized and de-bloated or replaced by a true OOP scripting language.. Especially since when you come down to it the succinctness of JavaScript and its ‘universal’ approach make it an excellent method of accomplishing things… More on this later (I hope :P )

Thanks for the info on Atlas.. I never knew that the JS in it was hidden from the end-user.. I never noticed it before, checking it out now :D

]]>