On 2013-03-23 10:02, Paulo Pinto wrote:

> Having said this, compiling code to JavaScript just feels wrong.

If you want to run the code in a browser that's basically your only option. Good luck getting all the browser to implement support for some new kind of language. In addition to that getting all users to update to this version of the browser. It will never happen.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 16:55:14 +0100
Jacob Carlborg <doob@me.com> wrote:

> On 2013-03-23 10:02, Paulo Pinto wrote:
> 
> > Having said this, compiling code to JavaScript just feels wrong.
> 
> If you want to run the code in a browser that's basically your only option. Good luck getting all the browser to implement support for some new kind of language. In addition to that getting all users to update to this version of the browser. It will never happen.
> 

"Never happen"? Nonsense. This is what you do:

Browser devs are obsessed with two things: The speed of their browser, and blindly imitating each other. So you do this:

1. Make a better language, make it compilable to JS, and also make an "executes without compiling to JS" browser extension or fork+pull request for just one browser (or more if you really want, but only one is needed).

2. Make sure the no-JS-involved version works much better than the
fallback-on-JS version. Luckily, that's easy because being lazy about
it and generating inefficient JS code is totally fair game
here (I actually do mean that, I'm dead serious here).

Remember, most of these Web people are the sorts who firmly believe in the popular new bandwagon "My time as a developer is far more important than my user's time; if my code is slow then those mouth-breathing dinosaurs should just upgrade their computers or fuck off". You could probably even implement it by compiling "new language" into JS *using* client-side JS.

Again, I'm dead serious about all that - really hardly anyone will raise an eyebrow. As long as the language itself (and libs/tooling) is good enough and convenient enough then most devs will just assume the speed hit is a natural unavoidable consequence and happily accept it. (I mean, fuck, they accepted JS and VMs and PHP, etc, didn't they? And I know people who genuinely believed that iTunes's inability to scroll smoothly/quickly through your list of songs was just because list of a few thousand was somehow too much for a 1GHz+, 4GB+ computer to handle. A laughable notion, of course, to anyone with half a brain, but people actually believe this shit.) To adapt an old security quote: "Dancing pigs will win every time."

3. Once the "fallback-to-JS" version catches on (because this new language *is* worthwhile, isn't it?), then point out to everyone: "Hey, I've got this extention/pull request/whatever for XXXX browser that seamlessly makes your 'SuperNewLangauge' webapp far, far faster!" People will think it's absolutely brilliant and near-magical, and that you must be a genius. The first browser will adopt it in their mainline because it's already *right there* for them to fold in since you already made it for them, and because it gives their browser a huge instant advantage on all the popular new 'SuperNewLangauge'-based web apps.

4. As soon as that first browser contains a feature, all the rest will trip over each other to add it too, because really, when was the last time a browser developer could actually stand for their browser to not be blindly dead-identical to every other browser out there? And because of reigniting the whole "browser speed wars" thing.

(5. W3C will step in and rape the spec into something completely and utterly moronic. Not to mention excessively convoluted.)

On 2013-03-23 17:40, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

> "Never happen"? Nonsense. This is what you do:

[snip]

People still uses IE 6.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 17:44:07 +0100
Jacob Carlborg <doob@me.com> wrote:

> On 2013-03-23 17:40, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> 
> > "Never happen"? Nonsense. This is what you do:
> 
> [snip]
> 
> People still uses IE 6.
> 

Totally different domain. We're talking about replacing JS due to JS's problems when used heavily. Any site that uses JS that heavily in the first place wouldn't be working on IE6 anyway. So, if you're making such a JS-heavy site that a "NewJS" could even matter at all, then you've *already* made the decision (explicitly or implicitly, ill-advised or not) to not support IE6.

In other words, a site that needs to work on IE6 isn't going to
be JS-heavy enough to benefit from "NewJS". Therefore,
the whole issue of a "NewJS" isn't relevant to IE6 at all.

Am 23.03.2013 16:55, schrieb Jacob Carlborg:
> On 2013-03-23 10:02, Paulo Pinto wrote:
>
>> Having said this, compiling code to JavaScript just feels wrong.
>
> If you want to run the code in a browser that's basically your only
> option. Good luck getting all the browser to implement support for some
> new kind of language. In addition to that getting all users to update to
> this version of the browser. It will never happen.
>

To run code in the browser the solution is simple, just code in JavaScript.

For everything else, just use the desktop instead of trying to bend a pile of broken abstractions designed for document viewing into some kind of application.

I used to be a big fan of web development around 10 years ago.

Nowadays, the experience of years of web development with multiple languages and frameworks, just makes me advocate desktop applications for what is a pile of broken abstractions full of hacks to try to mimic
the desktop across multiple browsers and operating systems.

And don't get me started to discuss about customers that only pay projects when the web application is pixel perfect with the given Photoshop design.

--
Paulo

Am 23.03.2013 16:12, schrieb Nick Sabalausky:
> On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 14:22:04 +0100
> ...
>
> 3. Rip the stupid thing out of the web browser, because it's clearly
> not a goddamn document.
>

+1 Like :)

On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 19:29:55 +0100
Paulo Pinto <pjmlp@progtools.org> wrote:
> 
> For everything else, just use the desktop instead of trying to bend a pile of broken abstractions designed for document viewing into some kind of application.
> 

I'd make a PDF viewer which adds all the JS and such the Web ended up with as a joke to demonstrate the goofiness of it all...but I'm afraid it might catch on. ;)

> 
> And don't get me started to discuss about customers that only pay projects when the web application is pixel perfect with the given Photoshop design.
> 

if(request.userAgent == "IE" && request.ip in paityHairedIPAddresses)
{
    response.send(smokeAndMirrors());
}
else
{
    response.send(normalSite());
}

On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 19:29:55 +0100
Paulo Pinto <pjmlp@progtools.org> wrote:
> 
> And don't get me started to discuss about customers that only pay projects when the web application is pixel perfect with the given Photoshop design.
> 

if(request.userAgent == "IE" && request.ip in paityHairedIPAddresses)
{
    response.send(smokeAndMirrors());
}
else
{
    response.send(normalSite());
}

On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 15:07:58 -0400
Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe@semitwist.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 19:29:55 +0100
> Paulo Pinto <pjmlp@progtools.org> wrote:
> > 
> > And don't get me started to discuss about customers that only pay projects when the web application is pixel perfect with the given Photoshop design.
> > 
> 
> if(request.userAgent == "IE" && request.ip in paityHairedIPAddresses)
> {
>     response.send(smokeAndMirrors());
> }
> else
> {
>     response.send(normalSite());
> }
> 

Ugh, stupid buggy NG client. Ignore this semi-duplicate post...

Am 23.03.2013 20:09, schrieb Nick Sabalausky:
> On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 15:07:58 -0400
> Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe@semitwist.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 19:29:55 +0100
>> Paulo Pinto <pjmlp@progtools.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> And don't get me started to discuss about customers that only pay
>>> projects when the web application is pixel perfect with the given
>>> Photoshop design.
>>>
>>
>> if(request.userAgent == "IE" && request.ip in paityHairedIPAddresses)
>> {
>>      response.send(smokeAndMirrors());
>> }
>> else
>> {
>>      response.send(normalSite());
>> }
>>
>
> Ugh, stupid buggy NG client. Ignore this semi-duplicate post...
>

You forgot the thousand and one versions of Webkit available around the web.

I already had to explain to a few customers why Safari on Windows, Mac OS X, iOS on iPhone and on iPad all have different behaviours, even though it is always "Safari Browser".