Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 13th Sep 2012 20:00 UTC, submitted by MOS6510
Mozilla & Gecko clones "Over the past year and a half I've been spending more and more of my time working with Mozilla's latest project, Firefox OS. During that time I've fallen in love with the project and what it stands for, in ways that I've never experienced with a technology platform before." I'm not convinced just yet. I hope it succeeds, but I just doubt it actually will.
Thread beginning with comment 535085
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

I said web development... as in JS as it applies to web development is better than it was 10 years ago. There is no comparison there, because there is nothing to compare it to.

Whatever though - I get your point.

That's true, and fine. I just don't see how its a counter point to excuse poor tooling.

Now you getting into religious arguments ;) Personally, I would argue that static typing is just a compiler optimization - it isn't a language feature. Its a stupid design decision because its primary purpose is to make compilers faster - it isn't about developer productivity at all. Its about forcing developers to manually disclose things that a computer can easily figure out at runtime.

To each their own on that one - I use 7 or 8 languages routinely, about half statically typed and the other half dynamic. I prefer dynamic any day of the week, I don't like having to put training wheels on my code.

I don't particularly find that to be a win. Dynamic typing make code less readable at a glance, and especially in the case of JS leads to ridiculous decisions like the lack of an integer system.

Ill give MS credit for allowing the CLR to do it either way though - if they didnt' allow dynamic typing the number of languages running on it would have stopped at 1...

I think this is a good idea and would rock for JS. Default static typing with optional dynamic typing.

The exact same thing can be said about C# or Java. Time, money, and good engineering can turn a weakness into a strength...

Well, I think that there are certain design issues in JavaScript that make it relatively harder to make fast. That's the crux of this argument.

Again - "features" that exist to make compilers happy and developers sad don't interest me much...

I don't know man, as a developer, poor performance makes me sad.

I would argue that the user experience depends more on the developer than the tools used. Ill even concede it is much easier to create a consistent user experience when using a full stack application development framework - as long as you are only targeting that single stack. I often care more about how many screens I can reach - and it is far easier to spend the time and write a good UI in HTML5 that you can deploy everywhere. It depends of course - it isn't good for everything - but that doesn't make it bad.

Code reuse greatly alleviates this. Its middle ground between two extremes. Not quite write once run anywhere, but not quite single stack either.

I do too for the most part. I'm pragmatic - sometimes it is easier that way to get a good result. But I find I choose that route less and less often because the JS/HTML approach is improving so much. I'm not religious about it - I just think saying it is crap and nonviable is extremely short-sighted...

I don't think its improving fast at all. The next improvements to the fundamental technologies are still years off. In the meantime, the deficiencies are unacceptable to me.

Um.. Java. Flash. Silverlight for the most part too. Im not saying they are dead for app development, but they are all dead for general purpose web development...

Silverlight was never meant to replace the web, only augment it. Remember, HTML5 didn't exist at that time. The only way to write RIAs was using a plugin. Silverlight was the best at this.

It doesn't mean byte code is categorically bad for the web. Hell, the generated , minified, gunk that is JS on most sites is a lot less human readable.

Look at meteor. Or angularjs. Or knockout. Or about 20 other up and coming declarative frameworks. Same thing... That is my point - HTML eventually adopts anything worth doing. It might not be quite as elegant and refined as XAML, but in the long run it won't matter because it doesn't need yet-another-runtime in order to work.

While good, you said it best, it lacks cohesiveness. For Knockout you need to select elements out of the tree and apply bindings and view models manually. There is no declarative databinding because markup can't be extended.

Its not really declarative then, its just a hack. The point is, its an app platform, not the web, you'll need a runtime anyway, so Mozilla used suboptimal tech for a really terrible reason. Developers should reject this crap.

Markup is markup. XAML is not good because of the markup language - it is good for the reasons you stated above - which are features of the runtime. Most of the same features can (and have been) applied to HTML/JS...

No they have not, because the markup hasn't been leveraged in doing so. JS has. Its not the same thing. Its perfectly reasonable to say HTML is terrible and inadequate, and say XAML is a lot better.

800 million devices with a 2-3 year lifespan... Well see how it goes. I'm actually a fan of Windows 8 - Im not knocking it at all. My point was what they call XAML now will likely be replaced with the-next-new-paradigm in the next 10 years or so. There is always something better around the corner - things like XAML fade away - remember OWL, MFC, etc. Web technologies evolve and adapt...

XAML has been around since 2004. Its been used in WPF, Silverlight, Workflow Foundation, XPS, WinRT, Windows Embedded, the Xbox 360, etc

The key difference now is that its part of the Windows Division, not the Developer Division. Its gone from a dev platform to an inherent part of Windows, with all the legacy implications that it brings.

Reply Parent Score: 3