JavaScript is the "VM" to target for D

[Nick Sabalausky]

"retard" <re at tard.com.invalid> wrote in message 
news:hqtaa3$307r$1 at digitalmars.com...
> Tue, 20 Apr 2010 21:38:57 -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>
>> "Nick Sabalausky" <a at a.a> wrote in message
>> news:hqljod$cad$1 at digitalmars.com...
>>> "Justin Johansson" <no at spam.com> wrote in message
>>> news:hqk7ve$2ouj$1 at digitalmars.com...
>>>>
>>>> my current thinking seems to be aligning with others that JavaScript
>>>> should be seen as the new "binary", albeit in text form, that HLLs
>>>> should be compiling down to for "webapp" development.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I believe *very* strongly in using a REAL language that then gets
>>> compiled down to worthless crap like PHP, ActionScript, etc., whenever
>>> such worthless crap platforms are necessary. Which is, of course,
>>> necessary FAR too often when you do web development, as I do.
>>>
>>>
>> Of course, I also believe very strongly that if a language or platform
>> is crap (browser-JavaScript), then the *real* correct solution is to fix
>> or replace it rather than just paint over it with another layer. But,
>> hey! That's not how we do things here in the internet technology world!
>> Just slap on another half-baked design to cover up last year's
>> half-baked design! Repeat ad infinitum. (Am I the only one that learned
>> anything from the old "There was an old lady who swallowed a..." nursery
>> rhyme?).
>
> The problem is, even if you come up with a superior alternative, there's
> a lots of politics in the way. Some (all?) enterprises expect to make
> profits from their old technology and push it further in all possible
> ways. It would take years or decades to replace anything without a killer
> application or two.
>

If some idiot wants to cling onto a piece of crap tech that never should 
have taken off to begin with, I see no good reason to help enable them by 
staying on the bandwagon.

> They only recently started to improve Javascript performance. It's not
> that bad actually. And the code can be distributed in cross-platform way
> across the network. They have low loading times unlike applets - a big
> win. E.g. I've started to use google docs, the UI is nice and doesn't
> crash unlike buggy native office applications.

For anything non-trivial, JS loading times are terrible. Better than 
applets, yes, but compared to non-JS sites? Yes, it's *that* bad. And by 
"that" bad, I mean bad enough to qualify as a bad approach. And even if you 
really did need client-scripting (and the vast majority of the time, you 
don't), there are better ways to distribute cross-platform code across a 
network.

-------------------------------
Not sent from an iPhone.