emscripten

[retard]

Fri, 17 Dec 2010 20:45:46 -0500, Jeff Nowakowski wrote:

> On 12/16/2010 03:04 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>>
>> I do make my pages usable both ways and I've found the extra effort to
>> be downright minimal. Unless you're doing things very, very, very
>> wrong, the vast majority of the work in a site is independent of JS vs
>> non-JS.
> 
> For the mortgage calculator, you have to implement the same
> functionality twice, once in JavaScript, and once as a backend
> calculation using request/response server navigation. The technologies
> are very different and it's nearly a complete duplication of work.
> 
>> And besides, no one's ever going to get me to agree with something
>> simply by trying to shame me into it with some idiotic
>> "newer-is-inherently-better", "Oh no! I don't want to be un-trendy!!"
>> line of dumbass sheep-think.
> 
> You're missing the point. 1995 is when JavaScript came out, and you
> couldn't depend on the browser having it. Now it's nearly ubiquitous, so
> there's very little benefit to spend the time making something like a
> mortgage calculator work without JavaScript.

FWIW, JavaScript still isn't very efficiently supported on many 
platforms. Latest IE beta (9), Opera, Chrome/Chromium daily builds, and 
Firefox betas might have a reasonable performance level, but the others 
often don't. We not only have windows and macosx. Many users have Linux 
or BSD or some portable device with integrated web browsers. Not every 
mobile phone is an Android phone or iPhone. At work places the corporate 
policy might prevent upgrades. E.g. I've worked in a company where they 
still use WinXP & IE 6 because new browsers would break expensive 
intranet apps.