To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Oh man, I guess I'm a pretty good time traveller, spending a lot of my time 30 years back every day B] These arcane concepts make your shiny JS-world go'round young one
Oh man, I guess I'm a pretty good time traveller, spending a lot of my time 30 years back every day B] These arcane concepts make your shiny JS-world go'round young one
" Preach!!!
Eh, not really young, I've done a lot of DOS programming in the 90s, and had to deal with all this. Those were not good times. I'd rather change jobs completely than deal with these concepts again.
As time goes by and we have more and more processing power we can afford to abstract all the low level stuff. Isn't it better to just work with ideas and not get lost in unnecessary implementation details?
Oh man, I guess I'm a pretty good time traveller, spending a lot of my time 30 years back every day B] These arcane concepts make your shiny JS-world go'round young one
If someone would bother to write a decent JS compiler you could completely rewrite my "shiny JS world" with it. My guess is that people are comfortable with what they know and speaking against entrenched concepts will get you labeled as a fool before anyone even considers the merit of your ideas.
Edited 2011-06-09 21:52 UTC




Member since:
2006-05-18
I think a HTML/XUL combination for the UI and JS for the logic behind it is pretty great, because it's easy to pick up and is high level enough so we don't have to worry about things like memory allocation and strong and static typing like we did 30 years ago. We've come far enough that we shouldn't have to fiddle with such arcane concepts. Instead we can focus on what's really important: being creative and getting more stuff done in the same amount of time.
On the flipside, I'm not really convinced that the current JS implementations are suitable for desktop applications. Someone should first make a proper JS compiler.