|
You can build complex websites with C++ e.g. eBay not that I particularly like their use of the microsoft dll.
|
|
|
|
|
You can write your server side code in whatever language you like, but I think this survey is about client side code
|
|
|
|
|
In my opinion there is no need to compile javascript or html, but I think html must evolve to something more similar to the XML itself.
Today, we can say that HTML is one of the uses of XML (even HTML coming first), but the problem is that some tags don't need to be closed, and it will work. If you forget to close a tag, or use an unknown tag, it will work (at least partially).
The same happens with javascript. While you don't reach the problematic line, it will work.
In my opinion, if both were "strong" checked (be it a compilation or not) it will be better.
If some tag was optional and can be ignored, I think the developer should be able to mark such tag, but the browser can't simple ignore it. The same goes for the script.
|
|
|
|
|
Static typing is for girls!
Real men don't need stinking type-checking at compile-time or runtime!
xacc.ideIronScheme - 1.0 beta 3 - out now! ((lambda (x) `((lambda (x) ,x) ',x)) '`((lambda (x) ,x) ',x))
|
|
|
|
|
What do you have against girls? No, wait, better not answer that.
|
|
|
|
|
Static and dynamic typing are for both boyz and girlz.
The point is them boyz and girlz had better know when and how to use either.
2+2=5 for very large amounts of 2
(always loved that one hehe!)
|
|
|
|
|
I wouldn't do it.
Also web pages should be created on the server, not with JavaScript on the client.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Andre xxxxxxx wrote: Also web pages should be created on the server, not with JavaScript on the client.
Of course, and all good web pages do that.. But they can be much more comfortable and fast to use with Javascript turned on.
|
|
|
|
|
Also I find flashblock a must.
John
|
|
|
|
|
John M. Drescher wrote: flashblock a must
I second it. That wicked SWF object always kicks my web browser when I type that important email. Nowadays everytime I sit on a shared PC, I just see that in the 'Manage Addons', those unscrupulous ActiveX controls remain disabled.
Vasudevan Deepak Kumar
Personal Homepage Tech Gossips
The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep!
|
|
|
|
|
JavaScript should only pepper up/spruce up/spice up the webpages. It can not and should not attempt to supplant the basic HTML and the serverside logic.
Vasudevan Deepak Kumar
Personal Homepage Tech Gossips
The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep!
|
|
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure that tools like JQuery and prototype are going to be even more valuable in the near future. They save you a ton of work and offer quite a lot of features to make every webapp stand out.
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise, it's a fine language.
xacc.ideIronScheme - 1.0 beta 3 - out now! ((lambda (x) `((lambda (x) ,x) ',x)) '`((lambda (x) ,x) ',x))
|
|
|
|
|
Especially when you have people cutting and pasting code from various sites and making changes to it when they really don't even know what it does.
|
|
|
|
|
Guilty as charged sometimes
I.W Coetzer
|
|
|
|
|
JavScript and VB are two of the worst offenders in this catagory. But I've seen C+++ code that was a pile of steaming kaka and VB that was wonderfully elegant.
There should be a competition to write the most elegant solution in the least appropraite language.
Panic, Chaos, Destruction.
My work here is done.
|
|
|
|
|
Pretty from far, but far from pretty
xacc.ideIronScheme - 1.0 beta 3 - out now! ((lambda (x) `((lambda (x) ,x) ',x)) '`((lambda (x) ,x) ',x))
|
|
|
|
|
I think the problem is with the Web Browser standards. While working with Javascript for long, I saw there are large no of things that run in IE but not in others and vice-versa.
So we always have to do trial-error test of sites before publishing in all browsers. Sometimes few silly codes are also to be applied to fix certain issues with browsers.
So the main concern is browser standards. Dont know when there would be a standardization of browsers.
|
|
|
|
|
Thats why JavaScript libraries like Prototype and JQuery are so useful. They provide out of the box functionality which has already been extensively cross browser tested, and is well supported.
Words fade as the meanings change, but somehow, it don't bother me.
|
|
|
|
|
In my opinion having a library with tons of "work arounds" to run in all browsers is a good choice only when it is the ONLY choice.
If another scripting language, with high standards was created and supported, I will for sure never user javascript.
|
|
|
|
|
I think what you've stated, Paulo, kind of goes without saying. However a new scripting language supported by all browsers is not currently on the horizon, and we have to work with what we've got.
If you have a client who is demanding Ajax effects, then the best option is a well tested and supported library. There is no point wasting time trying to create cross browser scripts from scratch when its already been done for you.
Words fade as the meanings change, but somehow, it don't bother me.
|
|
|
|
|
I agree. But it's a dream.
|
|
|
|
|
Paulo Zemek wrote: If another scripting language, with high standards was created and supported, I will for sure never user javascript.
Wouldn't that involve wasting all those learnings with JavaScript which evolved through so many versions and starting from the groundup?
Vasudevan Deepak Kumar
Personal Homepage Tech Gossips
The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep!
|
|
|
|
|
and it evolves a lot. It has a lot of powerful features and for writing extensions for the Firefox and also writing application with XUL. You can take a look at an article I wrote: A simple Firefox Addon with XP-COM Component[^]
And compared with the Internet Explorer it is an ease to write some stuff.
Press F1 for help or google it.
Greetings from Germany
|
|
|
|