Fuck JavaScript.

When is this garbage going to be banned!

That is all.

https://youtu.be/aXOChLn5ZdQ/...

See you in the next one. Yawn

Never.

Like it or not but it is the standard browser script and neither Microsoft nor Google have succeeded in their attempts to replace it.

Webassembly will reduce how much is used and allow more of the code to be written in other languages but you still need js for bootstrapping and actual DOM interactions since wasm can only talk to js.

You can hope for a time where the js stuff gets so standardized that you really never need to touch it, but it will still be there :)

@Jason you can actively help it, by using WASM instead 👌

@Voxera Standards pass, the secret ingredient is time.

@Jason for clarification, there are anough transpilers out there, that compile <insert your favourite language here> into WASM. The only caveat is, that they're not very old yet, so not quite battle hardened. But that's just a matter of time.

For my next project i will be using leptos in that context.

Someone says something against JS.

@ostream: "Evil backend devs are bullying us poor frontend web devs again!"

🤦‍♂️

@Grumpycat it will never be banned and banning is always the wrong approach. No matter if it’s a retarded language or some religion or an opinion.

@ostream start doing what you preach then.

@ostream also shall i remind you of Macromedia Flash again? And also, barely anyone is using C anymore, even though it was a standard once, but nobody's bitching around like you with JS.

@ostream didn't even need to scroll far ;)

It's always done right by me. :-)

Of course, I don't fuck with frameworks so... I guess you could say my experience isn't the typical one.

@ostream Except you are forced to use it in the browser unless you use WASM. I don’t want to use it. Waste of time and brain cells. Defacto standards suck shit.

@thebiochemic Yes the do, but how much time depends on the stubbornness of the ones using it, and there are some stubborn participants that are super afraid that adopting some other standard would give one of the other an edge ;)

So I will not try to hold my breath.

Js have reigned supreme for over 25 years, anything new has a lot of inertia to overcome and then you have all existing that have to be replaced before js can die.

We are probably talking decades at least.

@ostream so what, ABAP is paying my bills. Doesn't change the fact, that I don't like it and believe it should be replaced sooner than later.

@Voxera i would argue, that most projects have moved on to for example C++, or other languages. There's only a handful of modern projects, that run in C and nothing else.

@ostream Except the morons I work for….

@Voxera yes C is mostly replaced, but not completely.

And C++ is very much a superset of C (it started out as a lot of macros if I remember correctly) the same way as typescript is a superset of js.

But for business reasons no browser supports it out if the box as I mentioned.

And with wasm it’s doubtful if there will be a need to replace js.

It will fade into the background and then maybe there can be some replacement.

@thebiochemic your point about ABAP is a very good one.
I was in the same situation many years ago with Objective-C until it was replaced by Swift.
Just because something pays your bills doesn’t mean it should be glorified and protected.

@Lensflare I do not glorify js ;), I have just seen many attempts to replace it fail for other than technical reasons.

Had it been just technical and users I have no doubt it would be replaced but unless all browser makers agree to support some new language it cannot replace js.

And so far that has not happened despite both Microsoft and Google having tried.

@Voxera see, this is your personal situation. Every single web project ive been on moved on to or started directly in TypeScript, at the very least.

Also we all know, who's glorifying js on this platform currently.

@ostream then show me where Datatypes exist in js.

@ostream so you can't, i see.

@ostream that is EXACTLY my point. Nobody is using js. The thing is, that if you switch the backend to something more appropriate (like WASM), everybody would benefit from that. Or natively support something that is actually built for large scale Projects (like TS), we wouldn't even have this talk.

@ostream MS created a language that turned out to be so good that many JS devs, including you, don’t want to go back to raw JS anymore.

And you are mad at MS because they created TS on their own rules and terms and beside that provided it to everyone, free to use?

I’m no fan of MS but they deserves praise for TS.

@ostream nobody's forcing you to use the web at all, am i right ;)

@thebiochemic and types are for idiots, right? :)
But isn’t typescript all about types? 🤔

@ostream the half assed solution began, when people were trying to do stuff with JS, that it wasn't designed to do by a long shot. As i mentioned numerous times, js was originally designed to supplement CSS with animations and stuff like that, not whole Web architectures. It's about time to put it aside, because evidently nobody's using it anyways. And i feel, it's actually a good thing that it happens at some point, because it would free web development from the choke point, that is JS and open it up to the colorful variety of languages out there, that have various purposes and strengths.

@thebiochemic wrong. Js came before css, back in 95, css was born 96.

Js was created to handle validations in forms in netscape navigator 2.0.

And that version on netscape had a static dom. You could change some properties and hide things but not move them, add or delete.

Internet explorer 3.0 added modifiable dom.

Animations came later.

I started using the web even before js was born and have been following and using it ever since.

Animations did happen sure but fof a long time those was mostly java applets, shockwave and flash.

Only once flash started dying did js animations become common.

And that only happened after firefox improved js performance to a level where it was practical.

Old netscape and IE was very slow on dom changes and in IE that was deliberate since the office team were afraid that faster js would allow for a web based competition to ms office.

Google proved them right when FF had the speed and features ready. And after that google started Chrome since they realized the potential of controlling the browser market :/

@Voxera i mean sure.

But the point is that the result is the same, now you have a heavily misused and mutated language, that was largely not designed to do, what it does now, only to prove a point.

@thebiochemic If the stories are correct the first version of js was built by one developer in two weeks as a sort of last minute idea shortly before the 2.0 release.

Which might explain why the first version had do many limits in what it could do with the dom ;)

I doubt there was to much thought on exactly what it was going to be used for, it was just a neat feature.

A lot of the use cases was invented as time passed by and more and more of the dom was made available to be modified and of cause microsofts invention of ajax.

So I would not say mutated or misused, the language just grew in the direction there was ideas and use cases.

It does explain why it has some problems.

It was built asa quick solution without a definite plan and yes more intended for small simple scripts, not 100 000 lines programs. ;)

In essence, the language grew into what the users wanted and needed.

@Voxera yeah i kinda agree. But at the end of the day js ended up being the interface between the user and the DOM, which frankly, in the year 2023 for sure can be achieved differently than with a "historically grown" weekend project if you will.

I mean every other runtime created a bytecode specific to it's environment, with specific instructions. There is no reason to replace js with something like that, which would be a better solution anyways.

In the case of WASM two things need to be solved: String moves without reencoding, and access to the DOM. The moment these two things get implemented, js will go obsolete in a heartbeat, because the majority of frameworks will switch to or start working towards a backend in wasm. And since noone is natively using js anyways, most people will join in. The reason, why the whole planet went js is not because it was good, it's because it was available.

Maybe something entirely different comes along, it'd be atleast a breath of fresh air.

@thebiochemic I agree but I think the majority of web devs wouldn’t welcome wasm as readily as you describe. In their heads, JS is the best thing ever and using anything else is just idiotic. They will make fun of wasm and will resist to use it as long as they can. This alone will make the adoption of wasm or the fall of JS a much much harder and longer process than it should be.

@Lensflare yes, but arguably a substantial amount of devs is also too lazy to relearn their reacts and angulars an shit, and they probably will meme about it or get angry, but longterm just keep using it, no matter what is being used in the backend.

@ostream I didn’t even mean you in particular, you angry ape.
But thanks for proving my point.

This discussion is about maturing wasm to the point that it can do everything that JS can. Which is not the case now. So converting JS to wasm is worthless.

You obviously don‘t know what the discussion is about and you are just triggered by "JS bad" once again.

@ostream "Omg, JS is being criticized again. Go fuck yourself, asshole idiot!"

Sounds like exactly your reaction that justifies calling you triggered/unhinged/hysterical.

@ostream nice try, trying to fake stuff, asshole.

@ostream however, it's very amusing to believe i use microsoft stuff 🤷

@ostream this is what the message says. If i want to do F12 and change shit, i can do that myself, thank you very much

@thebiochemic you don‘t like js so you are a corpotard, obviously :)

@Lensflare apparently. and ostream is jesus

@ostream you mistake it again: Whining is what you do.
I have a heart. But I find it hard to be kind to something that is not a person (like a language) or morons.

@thebiochemic The choice to not allow dom interactions was a deliberate security and performance thing if I remember.

There have been decades of work improving security for js, by isolating the wasm code you open less opportunities for new security holes, speeding up adoption and also avoiding the risk of different dom interfaces.

Working out standard interfaces would delay wasm.

Since js is generally faster than dom manipulation anyway the performance hit of going through js is insignificant compared to the easier implementation of wasm.

And modern js gets jit compiled anyway.

As for strings I think it was the same, since there are so many encodings and such and since no one really writes wasm they just skipped it since the wasm compiler could do better optimizations.

Wasm was created based on emscriptems c++ to js compiler that used a subset of js to avoid any slow js code and it was so successful that mozilla craated a special run mode that skipped a lot of normal checks if triggered. They later took that and created a real assembly language for the browser and likely due to the no dom and simple and fast result they got the other browsers to implement it also.

@Voxera i'm 100% certain, that string conversions are a problem. Im a little fuzzy on the details but js uses UTF8 by default while wasm uses something else, and that needs to be converted everytime, you send data to js. If this conversion can be optimized away, frameworks that depend on wasm will almost always be faster than frameworks that depend on pure js. I remember the dev of leptos was talking about this specific optimisation, when creating the WASM library

And for the other thing. I guess in my opinion it's time to move beyond the DOM in general, but i guess a whole bunch of webdevs gonna dislike the absense of it (and it's not that we never updated stuff for the browser -> see js)

@thebiochemic I just remembered another argument, switching from C to C++ only needed a change at the developer since both compile to a common denominator, machine code.

Many other new languages do the same and compile to java byte code where you often have a runtime installed.

Replacing JS is different since js IS the common denominator being the only format that run out of the box on all browsers so replacing that would be more like getting Apple, Microsoft, ann unix and all Linux maintainers to embed a new byte code runtime like the java runtime as a default in their operating systems.

For that reason alone almost all new languages for browsers will compile to a combination of js and wasm.

@Voxera yes, and i'm saying that this _needs_ to change. Because adding paper bags to a solution, that wasn't designed for what it's used nowadays historically ran into desaster. These companies you mentioned know that very well too.

@thebiochemic Needs depend om your perspective.

Since they have not done it they obviously do not share your thought on this so far and if you look at operating systems, there is not much work going on to make it easier to run the same program out of the box on windows, linux and mac, except reusing java or .net runtime, neither which is native to the operating systems as such. (Except dotnet in windows)

So I would not assume this to change.

No matter what we think js probably works “good enought” to not require browser makers to put the time snd negotiations in to make it happen.

Not until they get a clear economical or other business incentive.

So we should start listing what benefits ff, ie, chrome and safari will get from such a change :)

@Voxera x86_64 seems good enough too. This maket changes, whether the big companies like it or not. OpenGL was good enough too, well.. now there's Vulkan and OpenGL starts to fade into Oblivion. C has long been replaces by C++ in the OS World, unless something won't be changed for legacty reasons, i'm pretty sure C won't be used for this.

However i see where you getting at, since at the end of the day companies drive to what makes them the most money (maybe much to their demise in some cases), but the thing, that the benefits have to be made very clear is definitely true.

and to you @ostream

you don't even know what you want yourself.
Talking to you is like talking to a toddler.
With @Voxera i can atleast have a normal conversation, without hearing unga bunga noises every second sentence.

Just shut for a goddamn second.

@ostream you are the only one who’s whining here, don’t you get it?
And don’t make false promises. You’ll never go away or shut up.

@ostream If you consider THIS being whining (which it isn’t), then all of your crap about cartards and corpotards is whining as well.

If you agree, you are a hypocrite.
If you disagree, you are an idiot.

@ostream so you agree and the only difference is that your whining is more diverse. I don’t see how this makes you less of a whiner.

@ostream that link doesn’t work for me. It leads to https://devrant.com