|
Let's get the order right, shall we?
Java was created to make smart appliances, independent of the particular CPU installed. It got captured by web-weenies because of the platform independence. For that purpose it works well. In fact, it works rather well for most practical applications in the Smart Appliance domain. Somewhere along the line, though, somebody thought it would be a good idea to make it into a universal language for all uses. That didn't work so well, and it got a bad name because of that. Java still does what it was intended to do very nicely; it even has some features that other languages - or more properly, libraries - don't do very well (serial communications pop readily into mind), but it's not, and never will be, a universal language. ECMA-Script is Java with a vasectomy, but it's a great tool. I just wish I could program with it a lot better...
"A Journey of a Thousand Rest Stops Begins with a Single Movement"
|
|
|
|
|
There is no connection between Java and JavaScript other than, unfortunately, a similar name.
One did not evolve or devolve from the other.
|
|
|
|
|
Netscape called it Javascript when they created the scripting language for their browser to trade on the "Java" mania of the time. It has a language similarities but is not but not a functional subset of Java.
|
|
|
|
|
No, it is actually ECMAScript that got standardized from JavaScript.
Edit:
Sometimes here on The Code Project, the answers to a Message doesn't show on the same page as the original Message, leading to unnecessary repetition of answers. 
|
|
|
|
|
i think javascript do the good work ever for webbased environment
i used javascript from last 4 year's on IE5/6/7/8 and FF and NN but with no
problems
good support.... 
If the message is useful for U then please Rate This message...
Be a good listener...Because Opprtunity knoughts softly...N-Joy
|
|
|
|
|
It's still just a way to try to get the Web to do something it wasn't designed to do; I'm amazed it works as well as it does.
|
|
|
|
|
SL & flash will change that ;}
peace & serenity
|
|
|
|
|
PIEBALDconsult wrote: It's still just a way to try to get the Web to do something it wasn't designed to do
When people use this argument it's always about one thing - statelessness. Statelessness is not nearly as much of an issue as it used to be. So, the argument is a bit outdated. Sure, you can consider original design decades ago and this applies, but despite the statelessness of HTTP, web technologies have evolved. When they all come together, these shortcomings disappear.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, I'm not that concerned about the state (or lack of it), what concerns me is the HTML part of it. Not that it's THAT bad, it does work, but for how long? I think there should be just ONE language to write web pages and applications, and never should a developer have to integrate one technology into an older one. Javascript (and VBScript as well) works great for a lot of things, and can probably survive well into the future, I just wish someone would get brave and introduce a browser that will interpret both HTML pages and new pages written in a nice, well-thought-out language that ALL browsers would soon integrate into their interfaces. It would be especially nice if such application/language were open-source as well. Just dreaming...
Gary W. Morris, Entepreneur
|
|
|
|
|
GMorris wrote: Well, I'm not that concerned about the state (or lack of it), what concerns me is the HTML part of it. Not that it's THAT bad, it does work, but for how long?
Um, what? Do you anticipate people magically dropping support for it? It's gonna work for a while since we are nowhere close to a new paradigm in software UI.
Also, the statelessness is the main argument against it, and it can be overcome. Which is my point. Outside of statelessness HTML is no worse than any other markup on the planet. Blind sweeping generalizations against it like you pose don't really prove a point. Well, I guess it did to the down voter, but he/she is probably a retard anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
I did say a browser that would KEEP the HTML capabilities AND introduce a newer, more extensible language that could also be interpreted. I also said, "just dreaming", as right now that's all it is. NEVER did I say HTML should just be abandoned!
Gary W. Morris, Entepreneur
|
|
|
|
|
GMorris wrote: I did say a browser that would KEEP
You also said "Not that it's THAT bad, it does work, but for how long?" Which implies to people actually reading your post that you somehow magically think it'll stop.
GMorris wrote: NEVER did I say HTML should just be abandoned!
I NEVER said that NOT said YOU said it EITHER so what's the POINT in saying THAT? However you implied by some magic force it'll stop. I suppose if you need to defend your stance it's ok to OVERLOOK what you actually SAID. But, you'll have to forgive me by going off of what you TYPE in the POST. I'm just CRAZY like that.
|
|
|
|
|
OK.. whatever. It's just my hope that someday, sometime, there will be something better than HTML, that's all I'm getting at. Right now it works, and well. Understood. I never tried to berate HTML as THE language of the web, just hoping that we'll come up with something a little easier to develop eventually.
Gary W. Morris, Entepreneur
|
|
|
|
|
Every time I see this sort of discussion I am thankfull 98% of my work is winforms. I'm happy here behind the firewall thank you.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
Mycroft Holmes wrote: Every time I see this sort of discussion I am thankfull 98% of my work is winforms.
I used to work on windows applications (developed using VB) but with move to .Net (C#) everything seems to have to be webified! I dont understand what the big fasination with webifying everything is, especially when a winforms and/or clickonce application would suit much better. 
|
|
|
|
|
Exactly! Just get some of the die-hard web developers to agree with you...
Gary W. Morris, Entepreneur
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
