/prog/ - Alternative to HTML for Cloud Programs

Name: Wolenber 2012-11-20 4:27

Note: This is not intended as a REPLACEMENT for the web as it is, but as an ALTERNATIVE. By its nature, it would allow for cloud based applications that look and feel much more like a native application, and should be billed as such.

Consider a "web browser" that thinks in a manner much more like a local application. It would use a toolkit which provides native themes (I'm considering using GTK+ for the reference implementation) and a set of widgets/components to work with, as well as an interpreted language which would cover the content, layout, formatting, and scripting of the web page.

Because all code is interpreted by the web browser, the implementation can prevent malicious code by running it in a sandbox. An example (and I believe safe) implementation would give each "web application" access to a sandboxed virtual filesystem in which it can store everything from settings to passwords to databases. Reading and writing files outside of the sandbox would be possible, but only by direct user action; it would not be able to read, run, or edit files without asking for permission (and probably requiring a file browser dialog for each file). This would allow the uploading of local files while preventing the application from stealing data.

Attached I have proposed an example of what the code would look like when it is written. It would be compiled to an obfuscated/minimal version by the server before being sent to the browser.
http://pastebin.com/44JHrEtq

Comments and opinions would be appreciated.

Name: Anonymous 2012-11-20 4:43

You don't gain anything by just transforming HTML+Javascript into a single, much wordier language that just looks more imperative. All you've done is required much more boilerplate per page.

There's a reason so many GUI toolkits are moving or have moved towards interpreting HTML or some other markup language, with actions being in some scripting language separate from looks: GUIs are most easily described declaratively, and separating concerns leads to cleaner code.

(This is also why Curl failed, even though S-expressions are obviously much nicer than SGML and the language was nicer than Javascript.)

Name: Anonymous 2012-11-20 5:06

gopher

Name: Anonymous 2012-11-20 5:07

At the very least, it's a reduction in verbosity. Realistically, most toolkits can be used in a declarative manor, and I think the with statement helps with that.
As far as "wordier" goes...



Page(false) {

    Title = "Hello";

     Content.add(new Label ("World"));

}

vs.



<html>

<head><title>Hello</title></head>

<body>

World

</body>

</html>

Name: Wolenber 2012-11-20 5:35

>>4
This is me, just noticed I forgot to namefag. I was on my phone, sorry.

Anyways, continuing...
I have yet to see a GUI toolkit that uses a declarative language (usually XML) that fails to provide an application/builder for that GUI. In fact, I would say that they only use the declarative version BECAUSE that's easier for an application to CREATE, not because it's any "better" than the other. Using a language that provides actual ways of reducing the amount of content could vastly decrease the amount of network communication.

Name: Anonymous 2012-11-20 8:42

This is bad. Don't invent a new (and quite terrible) language, you're just creating more problems for yourself. Just use or write a templating system for an existing language. That way, nobody will be put off learning this new language when they can use what they already know instead.

Name: Anonymous 2012-11-20 9:09

>>3
Yeah, and instead of ajaxing your actions you will send emails to the service owner

Name: Wolenber 2012-11-20 9:10

>>6
I can understand "don't invent a new language," but what makes it terrible? Part of my desire to invent a new language is that I don't want people to think they have full access to libraries, because I want to *force* the sandbox feature for security.

Name: Anonymous 2012-11-20 9:16

cloud
stopped reading right there

Name: Wolenber 2012-11-20 9:19

>>9
Wow, no need to hate the topic that hard. The whole damn point is to make cloud applications less painful, and more similar to a distributed local application. Every time you use it, it silently and politely updates by connecting to the server.

Name: Anonymous 2012-11-20 9:35

Cloud based
Fuck off

Name: Anonymous 2012-11-20 10:34

>>8
when, with, new X, Button:... ...
You're just inventing new syntax.
Why not use Facebook's JS thing? It already exists and it apparently works.

Name: Anonymous 2012-11-20 12:59

>>12
With and new aren't new syntax at all. Widget:"blah" is to accommodate css style classes. When is something I created, but it seems ... Useful.

Name: Anonymous 2012-11-20 13:06

>>13
Well yeah, okay. But with is widely considered harmful and when just looks like a very limited form of event handler.
The point was that when you're coming up with stuff that already exists, you might as well use something that already exists and save yourself (and everyone else) the trouble.

Name: Anonymous 2012-11-20 19:33

>with is widely considered harmful.
I've never heard this sentiment before. It's no more harmful than anything else, when you use it correctly. The only problem is people using it wrong, but if we disqualified language features based on that, pointers are much worse.

>when just looks like a very limited form of event handler
That's because it is. Certain events that happen frequently and aren't very technical will be available for when statements to make things a hell of a lot simpler. Again, the goals here are minimal code (which can be reduced further by the compiler to a reduced version) and making it a relatively easy transition for the HTML/CSS types.

Name: Anonymous 2012-11-20 19:47

>>15
You're really determined to make the maximum amount of work for yourself, aren't you?

Name: Anonymous 2012-11-20 19:56

>>15
back to /b/, please.

Name: Anonymous 2012-11-20 19:56

>>16
I'm determined to make a format that's worth using, even if it doesn't match up with everything that already exists.

So yes.

Name: Anonymous 2012-11-20 20:04

Replace HTML with a declarative S-expr language that expresses basic containers for defining the layout and keep the current form elements.

Replace CSS with a declarative S-expr language that actually makes sense, uses consistent naming and has a hierarchy of properties, so as to avoid the fucking retarded CSS cheatsheets with lots of stupid (and some browser specific) properties.

Replace Javashit with Scheme, and I mean the actual Scheme, not some pulled-out-of-the-anus-in-less-than-2-weeks clone.

Name: Anonymous 2013-08-31 17:39

And so while I'm walking down the mall, a bunch of the girls are riding their bikes with the starchy dresses. And they all go down this one hall, and I follow them and it leads to some sort of arcade thing, but its like a private arcade, and so you have to wait in line like to get in like a club. I wait around awhile, but no one is let through so I walk off. I decide to head back to my apartment/dorm/hotel room. On the way back to the entrance of the mall I see a bunch of Japanese girls cosplaying Vocaloids and Touhou characters.

Name: Anonymous 2013-08-31 19:10

This at least makes your job slightly easier. It's much easier if you upgrade/enhance your weapon. You can use 強化「荒御魂」spellcard to enhanced your weapon in game and 硬化「幸御魂」to enhance shield in your game

Alternative to HTML for Cloud Programs

1 Name: Wolenber 2012-11-20 4:27

2 Name: Anonymous 2012-11-20 4:43

3 Name: Anonymous 2012-11-20 5:06

4 Name: Anonymous 2012-11-20 5:07

5 Name: Wolenber 2012-11-20 5:35

6 Name: Anonymous 2012-11-20 8:42

7 Name: Anonymous 2012-11-20 9:09

8 Name: Wolenber 2012-11-20 9:10

9 Name: Anonymous 2012-11-20 9:16

10 Name: Wolenber 2012-11-20 9:19

11 Name: Anonymous 2012-11-20 9:35

12 Name: Anonymous 2012-11-20 10:34

13 Name: Anonymous 2012-11-20 12:59

14 Name: Anonymous 2012-11-20 13:06

15 Name: Anonymous 2012-11-20 19:33

16 Name: Anonymous 2012-11-20 19:47

17 Name: Anonymous 2012-11-20 19:56

18 Name: Anonymous 2012-11-20 19:56

19 Name: Anonymous 2012-11-20 20:04

20 Name: Anonymous 2013-08-31 17:39

21 Name: Anonymous 2013-08-31 19:10

Name: Wolenber 2012-11-20 4:27

Name: Anonymous 2012-11-20 4:43

Name: Anonymous 2012-11-20 5:06

Name: Anonymous 2012-11-20 5:07

Name: Wolenber 2012-11-20 5:35

Name: Anonymous 2012-11-20 8:42

Name: Anonymous 2012-11-20 9:09

Name: Wolenber 2012-11-20 9:10

Name: Anonymous 2012-11-20 9:16

Name: Wolenber 2012-11-20 9:19

Name: Anonymous 2012-11-20 9:35

Name: Anonymous 2012-11-20 10:34

Name: Anonymous 2012-11-20 12:59

Name: Anonymous 2012-11-20 13:06

Name: Anonymous 2012-11-20 19:33

Name: Anonymous 2012-11-20 19:47

Name: Anonymous 2012-11-20 19:56

Name: Anonymous 2012-11-20 19:56

Name: Anonymous 2012-11-20 20:04

Name: Anonymous 2013-08-31 17:39

Name: Anonymous 2013-08-31 19:10