OT: Flash and Javascript (Was: Taunting)

[Nick Sabalausky]

"Ary Borenszweig" <ary at esperanto.org.ar> wrote in message 
news:gvcehp$2rdf$1 at digitalmars.com...
> 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.
>

Yea, well, why add more?

> Also, Javascript makes some stuff faster because you don't have to reload 
> the whole page again.
>

In theory, sure.

Now in practice:

1. The JS still has to be parsed and executed. That takes time in addition 
to everything else the browser would normally be doing.

2. The time taken by all of the other useless crap the JS is often doing can 
easily overshadow the time for a few extra k of content.

3. A lot of times it'll even add extra trips to the server (and in many 
cases, a number of complete different servers/domains) because in addition 
to loading the main page and images, a lot of those AJAX-heads have decided 
they have to have a bunch of individual pieces of content downloaded 
individually by a script in the main page. That's a lot slower than just 
downloading it as part of the original page.

4. Like grauzone said, there are other ways to decrease the need for 
full-page reloads.

>> 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.

And if JS and Flash were typically used correctly I wouldn't be complaining 
in the first place.

How often is AJAX actually implemented correctly? Certainly no more often 
than any other use of JS or Flash. And like grauzone said, it makes it far 
too difficult to actually get it right. I know from direct personal contact: 
the typical web developer is a lazy SOB. If it's hard for them to get 
something right (*IF* they even care about getting things right - and with 
web developers, that's rarely the case), then they're not going to bother to 
get it right. And surprise, surprise, most of them don't get it right.

> See Gmail, for example. It uses AJAX all the time, and back and forward 
> buttons work as expected. I think Facebook does this too.
>
> 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.

That's more myth than truth. Users don't need those kinds of animations to 
know what's going on. And for the users that are unknowledgeable enough to 
not know what's going on without animations, they're certainly *not* going 
to understand the animations either. All they're going to understand is "Oh, 
look, there's colors and shapes moving around".

Seriously, I've sat and watched these people. Animations make FAR less 
difference, even with novices, than most people like to think. The only true 
purpose those sorts of animations serve is to *dazzle* people into opening 
their wallets. It's little more than a modern equivalent of those loud 
salesmen with greased hair and a tacky almost Liberace-esque suit, 
surrounded by banners and confetti, etc...

Additionally, even in a case where an animation would aid in understanding, 
it only needs to be a split-second. Probably about 250ms max. Anything 
longer than that (which accounts for the vast majority of such animations on 
the web...as well as DVD) and interface feels unresponsive.

Plus, particularly with JS, those animations are incredibly jerky. So even 
from a purely aesthetic point of view, they just look awful, and even 
unprofessional.