OT: Flash and Javascript (Was: Taunting)

[grauzone]

Ary Borenszweig wrote:
> grauzone escribió:
>>> browsers. What's the big deal everyone have with Javascript?
>>
>> It's unnecessary, annoying, slower, and adds security holes.
> 
> Anything which connects to the internet poses a security hole, like your 
> web browser. So that's not a reason.
> 
> Also, Javascript makes some stuff faster because you don't have to 
> reload the whole page again.

That's true. But it wouldn't be so hard to find good alternatives to 
implement this. At least JS isn't inherently needed for this.

And whatever happened to frames? I guess they were too "ugly"?

>> About AJAX, you know it breaks the back button and all other sorts of 
>> practical things you are used from normal web browsing.
> 
> Not if implemented correctly. See Gmail, for example. It uses AJAX all 
> the time, and back and forward buttons work as expected. I think 
> Facebook does this too.

Point is, it's hard to get right. With standard HTML, it's hard to _not_ 
get it right. That's the difference. Also, the AJAX method of using back 
buttons is likely to be buggy, even if "implemented correctly".

> And
>> occasionally, they use it for animations. Animations what for?
> 
> To show the user what just happened. If you just make some content 
> appear from nowhere, the user will not know what happened. If you make 
> it appear sliding from a particular point, then you are telling the user 
> that something is being created, and the trigger is that point.

But when I click on an element, I expect something to happen anyway. Oh, 
and I _don't_ want to wait for an animation. (Even if the animation is 
fast, or the animation doesn't block input, the user perceives a delay.)

On the contrary, most time I do _not_ want something to change, if I 
don't click it. And if it's something like updating data in real time, 
you don't need an animation either.

I can't remember even one situation, where a GUI animation was actually 
helpful.