/prog/ - The Anti-JavaScript Conspiracy

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-22 20:01

THE GOOD
- JavaScript is adopted in every significant browser, and as so it is one of the most popular programming languages in the world.
- JavaScript is a good programming language. Most developers agree with this. It's down to earth, has a good enough feature set, implements good concepts from both the object oriented and functional programming mindsets.

THE BAD
- JavaScript is incomplete. Several functional programming features that'd make sense in it are lacking.
- JavaScript is insecure. There's no module system, it's impossible to encapsulate things properly.
- JavaScript is browser only. The lack of a decent standard pushes people away from server-side and compiled JavaScript.

THE UGLY
- Million dollar companies are interested in million dollar franchises. Java, C# make a lot of money for a lot of people.
- Companies are shit-scared of anything they can't control. Even if their product is good and everybody wants to use it, it must be their product. It is no wonder C++ isn't nearly as popular as it was a few years ago. C++ wasn't Sun's, wasn't Microsoft's, wasn't Adobe's; it was Bjarne's.
- The number of JavaScript developers is growing exponentially. The more people use the Internet, the more JavaScript developers show up. What if they decise to use their dear language in their desktop applications? Who could stop them? What would be the faith of Java and .NET?
- JavaScript is, at the same time, both a free language (because it's easy to implement and widely adopted in browsers, the commonest pieces of software today) and a controlled one (the ECMA standard obeys the decisions of giant corporate players).

CONNECT THE DOTS.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-22 20:05

FROZENVOID QUALITY

But you're almost convincing me.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-22 20:06

WWWWWWWWWWWWWwwwwwwWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWwWWWWWWWWW WWWWWWWWWWWwwwwwwwwwwwwWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW WWWWWWWWWwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW WWWWWWWWWwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW WWWWWWWWWwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW WWWWWWWWWwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW WWWWWWWWWWwwwwwwwwwwwwwwWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW WWWWWWWWWWWWwwwwwwwwwwwWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW WWWWWWWWWWWWWwwwwwwwwwwwwwwWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW WWWWWWWWWWWwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW WWWWWWWWWWwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwWWWWWWWWWWWWWWwwwwWWWWWWWW WWWWWWWWWWwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwWWWWWWWwwwwwwwwwwwwwWWWW WWWWWWWWWwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwWW WWWWWWWWWwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwWWWWW WWWWWWWWWwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwWWWWWWWWWWW WWwwWWWWWWWwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwWWWWWWWWWWWWW WwwwwwwwwwWWWwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwWWWWWWWWWWWWW wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwWWWWWWWWWWWW WWwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwWwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwWWWWWWWWWW WWWWWWWWwwwwwwwwwwwwwwWWwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwWWWWWWWWW WWWWWWWWWWWWWwwwwwwwWWWWwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwWWWWWWW WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWwwwwwwwwWWWWwwwwwwwwwwwWWWWW WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWwwwwwwwwWWWWWWwwwwwwwwwwwWWW WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWwwwwwwwwWWWWWWWWwwwwwwwwwwWW WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWwwwwwwwwWWWWWWWWWwwwwwwwwwwW WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWwwwwwwwwWWWWWWWWWWWwwwwwwwww WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWwwwwwwwwWWWWWWWWWWWwwwwwwwww WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWwwwwwwwWWWWWWWWWWWWwwwwwwww WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWwwwwwwwwwWWWWWWWWWWWwwwwwwwWW WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWwwwwwwwwwwwwWWWWWWWWWWwwwwwwwwWW WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWwwwwwwwwwwwwwWWWWWWWWWWWwwwwwwwwWW WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWwwwwwwwwwwwwWWWWWWWWWWWWWwwwwwwwwWWW WWWWWWWWWWWWWWwwwwwwwwwwwwWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWwwwwwwwwWWW WWWWWWWWWWWWwwwwwwwwwwwwWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWwwwwwwwwWWW WWWWWWWWWWWWwwwwwwwwwwWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWwwwwwwwwWWW WWWWWWWWWWWWwwwwwwwWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWwwwwwwWWWW

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-22 20:18

>>1
Mostly true, with some exceptions:
- JavaScript is browser only. The lack of a decent standard pushes people away from server-side and compiled JavaScript.
There are some out of the browser implementations.
There are enough open sourced implementations, that you can do what you want with the language.
- Companies are shit-scared of anything they can't control. Even if their product is good and everybody wants to use it, it must be their product. It is no wonder C++ isn't nearly as popular as it was a few years ago. C++ wasn't Sun's, wasn't Microsoft's, wasn't Adobe's; it was Bjarne's.
Languages survive just fine without being controlled by companies. They may not get heavily marketed, or have payed support, but people that care use them.
- JavaScript is, at the same time, both a free language (because it's easy to implement and widely adopted in browsers, the commonest pieces of software today) and a controlled one (the ECMA standard obeys the decisions of giant corporate players).
I can't say I'm a big fan of what Adobe is doing with ActionScript(ECMAScript-based), they seem to be moving it away from Scheme and more toward Java. I suspect this is due to performance reasons, but I wouldn't know.

CONNECT THE DOTS.
I don't get it? What is the 'conspiracy'? Everyone just moves in the direction they want.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-22 20:20

I ported a program that was written in Python to JavaScript and ran it under the V8 console interpreter. It ran over 20 times faster.

CONNECT THE DOTS.

Also people keep talking about this Java and C# bullshite. I don't doubt MS and Sun's salespeople talked a lot of clueless managers into using them making them big in the enterprise, but I still have yet to see a worthwhile desktop program written in them.

Name: >>4 2010-01-22 20:21

What if they decise to use their dear language in their desktop applications? Who could stop them? What would be the faith of Java and .NET?
But they already do. Adobe tried to ride this wave with AIR/ActionScript as well.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-22 20:22

There are enough open sourced implementations, that you can do what you want with the language.
I can do anything with any language. But what's the point if it's just me?

Languages survive just fine without being controlled by companies. They may not get heavily marketed, or have payed support, but people that care use them.
Yes, and that is the case for Ruby. But JavaScript is different, because (unlike Ruby) it was born in the corporate world and then subsequently handicapped by the same corporate world. It is one thing for a language not to get any marketing, it is another for a language to get intentionally deceptive marketing.

I can't say I'm a big fan of what Adobe is doing with ActionScript(ECMAScript-based), they seem to be moving it away from Scheme and more toward Java. I suspect this is due to performance reasons, but I wouldn't know.
They're doing it to make it more like Java.

I don't get it? What is the 'conspiracy'? Everyone just moves in the direction they want.
The truth is out there, man.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-22 20:29

Wait why is the subject The Anti-JavaScript Conspiracy? I thought you are talking about a pro-JS conspiracy.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-22 20:32

>>7
Javascript was a language which was designed in a rush. The language designer was smart, but the management/marketing asked him to make it have a Java syntax, hence the name. Since then they've tried to move the language even closer to Java. While the language designer had good intentions, this doesn't mean his intentions match the corporate intentions, which just wanted another Java clone. I got to write a little bit of ActionScript lately and I noticed they even removed eval, what a shame.
I think better solutions for those that want to develop for the browser would be to just write in your favorite language and compile to Javascript. You could for example write a subset of Lisp and compile it to Javascript. It's a bit of a shame they don't have goto or mandatory TCO(one of those features is needed if you want to use the language as a backend/target language in a compiler. goto is straightforward for translating many constructs, and TCO by itself allows avoiding using goto, while actually getting all the efficiency of it, and in some case even more flexibility.).

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-22 20:34

>>8
CONSPIRE MY ANUS

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-22 20:40

>>6
Yeah, but Adobe is kind of a loser when it comes to doing anything besides Acrobat, Photoshop and buying Macromedia. Nobody takes them seriously.

>>9
Yes.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-22 20:41

You could for example write a subset of Lisp and compile it to Javascript.
There are at least 3 scheme->javascript translators and at least one implements continuations and TCO.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-22 20:57

>>12
http://www.biwascheme.org/
https://csel.cs.colorado.edu/~silkense/js-scheme/ (repl)
http://code.google.com/p/js-scheme/
http://www.omnigia.com/scheme/cpscm/home/
http://www.cs.brown.edu/~sk/Publications/Talks/Moby-Bootstrap/ (I think)

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-22 21:19

Just wanted to comment that I support the spirit of this thread and would like to see JavaScript go farther.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-22 21:24

>>10

CAR MY ANUS
CDR MY ANUS

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-23 7:22

>>13 Also relevent is
http://www-sop.inria.fr/mimosa/scheme2js/
http://hop.inria.fr/

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-23 7:58

>>14
Bumping for JavaScript

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-23 8:13

>>12
There's also Parenscript for CL.

Name: !!+gaPWk+ZVGN9DEP 2010-01-26 0:36

Lisp is the only free language without a corporate master and Javascript is its African-American GI Love Child left behind.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-26 1:33

>>19
There's actually 2 active commercial CL vendors, their products are pretty good, but quite expensive. They follow the ANSI CL standard pretty well, and aside from that provide their own extensions. Lisp can't ever truly have a 'master' as it's a family of languages, and even specific dialects such as Common Lisp or Scheme which are well-specified are flexible enough that anyone can extend the language how they wish, meaning that it's unlikely that anyone would change the standard in the future - Lisp's shortcomings can be solved by the user with little effort, which some consider a two-edged sword. Some dialects do have benevolent dictators, such as Clojure, but Lisp itself will probably never have this, and that is good.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-26 4:05

Gnome plugins will be written in Javascript in the near future.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-26 14:09



js> fac(600)

Infinity

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-28 16:37

test

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-28 17:20

stop that.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-28 18:02

test
test
test_{i_{i_ing}}
SAGE

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-28 21:42

>>22
It's not like C has native support for integers larger than 64 bits. (Or whatever it is.) And it's relatively easy to implement an arbitrary precision library, although the lack of operator overloading sort of sucks.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-28 22:37

>>26
I have yet to see a use of operator overloading that actually clarifies code.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-29 9:11

>>27
My take is that operator overloading would be acceptable if only designated (such as primed versions) operators could be overloaded. Personally I'm into the idea of something like #<op> or <op># being used.

Name: Anonymous 2010-04-15 20:13

import progriders

progriders.bump('1264208478')

Name: Anonymous 2010-04-15 21:22

>>1
C++ wasn't Sun's, wasn't Microsoft's, wasn't Adobe's; it was Bjarne's.
You can't seriously believe this was the principal reason C++ fell out of favour.

Name: Anonymous 2010-04-15 22:21

>>30
C++ fell out of favour?

Anyway, Java and .NET have both taken their bite out of portable assembler, so I'd say that >>1 is right in a really stupid way: Sun and Microsoft have striven to eat C++'s mindshare.

(Python and other things may also be nouveau popular, but they hardly feed on portable assembler mindshare. There should be negligible overlap in application since 1990 or earlier.)

Name: Anonymous 2010-04-16 2:42

Go will dethrone C++ for systems programmmning

Name: Anonymous 2010-04-16 3:15

I hope server-side javascript will improve so we can deliver rich AJAX applications and be rid forever of the desktop paradigm.

Name: Anonymous 2010-04-16 3:52

Jax my anus

Name: Anonymous 2010-04-16 8:32

>>32
Go
I think you mean BitC.

Name: Anonymous 2010-04-16 12:20

>>31
Sorry, an anonymous forum doesn't exactly confer technical pedigree easily. If you want to reject the hypotheses, provide the relevant materials. But don't expect me to give you brownie points because of some unverified expertise on the subject that you claim you have.

Name: Anonymous 2010-04-16 14:15

>>36
Er what?

Name: Anonymous 2010-04-16 18:09

name reasons for why to use javascript instead of cc/++ (talking about non website stuff)

Name: Anonymous 2010-04-16 18:11

>>38
fix: c/c++

Name: Anonymous 2010-04-16 18:56

>>38
No.

Name: Anonymous 2010-04-16 20:17

>>38
It's a nice language

Name: Anonymous 2010-04-16 23:29

EIEIO

Name: Anonymous 2010-04-16 23:38

cc/++
Call with current Sepples?

Name: Anonymous 2010-04-17 1:24

it's impossible to encapsulate things properly.
sorry, just had to point this out:



var get_x;

var set_x;

(function(){

  var x = 0;

  get_x = function(){ return x; };

  set_x = function(n){ x = n; };

})();



alert(x); // x is undefined here

          // the only way to access it is through get_x() and set_x()

set_x(42);

alert(get_x()); // get_x() returns 42

Name: Anonymous 2010-04-17 1:37

>>44
I hope no one would be satisfied by that in place of a real module system. That's just object nonsenery to abuse things to get a private member, and doesn't even do so "properly" by any stretch of the imagination.

Name: Anonymous 2010-04-17 2:03

>>45
i don't see you providing any examples of how you think any language does it "properly". it's trivial to create a "real module system" in javascript, but most people don't bother because there's really no point.

Name: Anonymous 2010-04-17 2:46

>>36 must return to whatever circlejerkful forum he came from.

Name: Anonymous 2010-04-17 3:42

>>46
i don't see you providing any examples of how you think any language does it "properly".
That is correct, I have not provided any examples.

Why are you confusing private members for a module system anyway?

Name: Anonymous 2010-04-17 4:56

>>48
why are you confusing a module system for encapsulating things properly?

Name: Anonymous 2010-04-17 16:59

>>49
That language is held over from >>1. I'm just here to point out that your solutions are all GOSUB quality.

Name: Anonymous 2010-11-25 20:08

Name: Anonymous 2011-02-04 14:15

Name: Anonymous 2013-10-05 10:09

progriders.org

Name: Anonymous 2013-10-05 12:29

>>53
Thanks, this looks like an epic WebSight!

The Anti-JavaScript Conspiracy

1 Name: Anonymous 2010-01-22 20:01

2 Name: Anonymous 2010-01-22 20:05

3 Name: Anonymous 2010-01-22 20:06

4 Name: Anonymous 2010-01-22 20:18

5 Name: Anonymous 2010-01-22 20:20

6 Name: >>4 2010-01-22 20:21

7 Name: Anonymous 2010-01-22 20:22

8 Name: Anonymous 2010-01-22 20:29

9 Name: Anonymous 2010-01-22 20:32

10 Name: Anonymous 2010-01-22 20:34

11 Name: Anonymous 2010-01-22 20:40

12 Name: Anonymous 2010-01-22 20:41

13 Name: Anonymous 2010-01-22 20:57

14 Name: Anonymous 2010-01-22 21:19

15 Name: Anonymous 2010-01-22 21:24

16 Name: Anonymous 2010-01-23 7:22

17 Name: Anonymous 2010-01-23 7:58

18 Name: Anonymous 2010-01-23 8:13

19 Name: !!+gaPWk+ZVGN9DEP 2010-01-26 0:36

20 Name: Anonymous 2010-01-26 1:33

21 Name: Anonymous 2010-01-26 4:05

22 Name: Anonymous 2010-01-26 14:09

23 Name: Anonymous 2010-01-28 16:37

24 Name: Anonymous 2010-01-28 17:20

25 Name: Anonymous 2010-01-28 18:02

26 Name: Anonymous 2010-01-28 21:42

27 Name: Anonymous 2010-01-28 22:37

28 Name: Anonymous 2010-01-29 9:11

29 Name: Anonymous 2010-04-15 20:13

30 Name: Anonymous 2010-04-15 21:22

31 Name: Anonymous 2010-04-15 22:21

32 Name: Anonymous 2010-04-16 2:42

33 Name: Anonymous 2010-04-16 3:15

34 Name: Anonymous 2010-04-16 3:52

35 Name: Anonymous 2010-04-16 8:32

36 Name: Anonymous 2010-04-16 12:20

37 Name: Anonymous 2010-04-16 14:15

38 Name: Anonymous 2010-04-16 18:09

39 Name: Anonymous 2010-04-16 18:11

40 Name: Anonymous 2010-04-16 18:56

41 Name: Anonymous 2010-04-16 20:17

42 Name: Anonymous 2010-04-16 23:29

43 Name: Anonymous 2010-04-16 23:38

44 Name: Anonymous 2010-04-17 1:24

45 Name: Anonymous 2010-04-17 1:37

46 Name: Anonymous 2010-04-17 2:03

47 Name: Anonymous 2010-04-17 2:46

48 Name: Anonymous 2010-04-17 3:42

49 Name: Anonymous 2010-04-17 4:56

50 Name: Anonymous 2010-04-17 16:59

51 Name: Anonymous 2010-11-25 20:08

52 Name: Anonymous 2011-02-04 14:15

53 Name: Anonymous 2013-10-05 10:09

54 Name: Anonymous 2013-10-05 12:29