This is apparently not a joke: http://www.nomorejavascript.com/
-
But definitely written by a really, really dumb person.
-
Wait, is this against JS on the server or JS in the browser?
Or both?
-
We are going to start a kickstarter campaign or get VC funding to create a javascript replacement
Good luck with that.
<html><head> <title>No more javascript! This page is dedicated to creating a language that browsers will accept that is easier to understand, more efficient, and all around better than javascript!</title> [...] <script charset="ISO-8859-1" src="//fast.wistia.com/assets/external/popover-v1.js"></script>
Ooops.
-
Yeah, good luck getting widespread browser support... I have an idea for them: Let the creative people design their website in the tool of their choice and then turn it over to people who know WTF they are doing and let them implement it. Problem solved.
-
At least they aren't using Discourse.
-
I have an idea for them to make all of this quicker and easier for them to get it off the ground. They could write a Ruby interpreter in Javascript and load that on page load. What could go wrong? ;)
-
They're a little late. Older HTML specs allowed any scripting language-- that's why ActiveX was a thing back in HTML3 and 4. And that's why DOM is written with so few assumptions about the language interfacing with it.
But XHTML and newer have JavaScript written into the spec, I'm nearly 100% sure.
-
Did you notice that they are recommending Ruby as a replacement?
Filed under: if you think the page is slow now...
-
I was being facetious.
-
I like how one of their complaints about javascript is camel casing. Because everyone knows that camel casing is imossible in Ruby.
-
<noscript>Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.</noscript>
Kind of amusing given the current context.
-
.....that website is blocked at work. WTF.
(Is it new? My domains get blocked for 2 weeks after being registered, then the block is lifted once they're shown not to be botnets or malware-infested sites)
-
I think so. The oldest Disqus comment appears to be ~16 hours old.
That would also explain why they only have 152 signatures.
-
It's rising quickly (172 now)!
And someone already mentioned Dart in the comments.
-
Serious question: if it were actually feasible to replace JavaScript, how feasible would it be to have static typing in the replacement?
-
Drat. I was hoping it was blocked for another reason XD The rules and reasons aren't shown with our filter, I only know about the new domain one because I was pissed when the blog I set up at my manager's suggestion was blocked from work.
-
how feasible would it be to have static typing in the replacement
You could write a static-typed compiled language that compiles down to minified javascript and use it today... that's probably been done though.
-
Maybe their counter should be AJAX?
-
You could write a static-typed compiled language that compiles down to minified javascript and use it today... that's probably been done though.
The haskell world has done it. I don't remember the library name offhand.
-
Replying to post directly above:
Should be on here
-
Why reinvent the wheel? Just use the JVM
*ducks*
-
This topic needs a "flamebait" tag.
-
I just created a Disqus account to post a comment about their stupid camel case complaint. It's posted in an "On Hold" state:
That explains why they only have positive comments.
-
It would have been so much better if you posted with a Mr. Burns avatar.
-
I didn't take the time to do more than create the account.
-
It likely does not matter anyway, it will never see the light of day.
-
@Intercourse said:
It likely does not matter anyway, it will never see the light of day.
Apparently. It has now disappeared completely.
-
Let's take the world's most memory hogging obnoxious language and put it into a browser! What could go wrong!
Mono could be implemented in a browser and still win out in performance and memory than fucking Ruby any day.
The people who come up with these kind of proposals are complete fucking idiots that don't even understand the complexity of work needed to create engines like V8 or SpiderMonkey to run really fast.
-
Just use the JVM
You could totally use something like emscripten to compile the JVM into js and then write your apps in any JVM language....
-
the evil ideas thread is thataway... =======>
-
Why not just run a full virtual machine in Javascript, then run your apps inside that?
-
[code] var x = myFunction();
function myFunction() {
return a * b;
}
[/code]
What if it was like this?
[code]
x = my_function
def my_function
a * b
end
[/code]Wait, how the fuck is it more readable? a*b is somehow returning data in the function without being assigned to anything? Does ruby actually allow this fucking syntax disaster?
And what's with the loopsidedness, "function myFunction()" is redundant while in ruby it's not because of "def my_funciton". SO DONT CALL IT FUCKING myFunction in JS and BITCH. There's plenty of other things to call it. Fuck you can underscore the name just like ruby.
-
Does ruby actually allow this fucking syntax disaster?
Ruby is a fucking syntax disaster.
-
Does ruby actually allow this fucking syntax disaster?
yes.
we dislikes it.
we doesn't hates it because it has never bitten us yet. we'll start hatsing it when it bites us. yessss we will. precious! our precious!
</smeagol>
-
When has Google ever attempted to make things easier and less complicated for everyone else? They hire rocket scientists and expect everyone else to keep up!
IDK GWT is pretty damn simple.
Variables/Functions Be Defined Simpler Get Rid of Camel Casing! It makes things hard to read and should not be the standard.
var x = myFunction();
function myFunction() {
return a * b;
}
What if it was like this?
x = my_function
def my_function
a * b
end
lolwut
Apparently indentation inside code blocks inside quotes is broken :/
-
And why are both assigning x to my_function before my_function is defined? What's the point of doing that?
(no, I've never touched Javascript)
-
quote jynx? we quotes same thing at almost exactly same time. :-D
-
Mono could be implemented in a browser and still win out in performance and memory than fucking Ruby any day.
I'll just leave this here.
-
Why reinvent the wheel? Just use the JVM
<small>*ducks*Oh, yeah! Finally put the Java in Javascript!
-
Discourse has exactly 2 good things: live thread updating and notifications.
Although you could argue that both can result in more posts with less content each, since it kind of turns threads into a chat.
-
Same with me and @delfinom
-
Yeah, I would have said, OK,
var x = my_function() function my_function(){ return a * b; }
...and been done with it. I hate camel case, but I'd rather deal with that than the apparent magic going on after
def
.
-
I remember seeing discussions on the WebKit development mailing list about supporting multiple scripting languages (triggered by Google engineers who wanted to promote Dart).
The main arguments against it were:
- The multiple language runtimes would add bloat to the browser
- Language support would vary between browsers, leading to compatibility issues
- Most programming languages are not designed to run in a sandbox
- Managing the lifetime of DOM objects between multiple language runtimes and the DOM itself would be quite difficult
So basically, I don’t think this will ever happen. We may get new versions of JavaScript which with fewer flaws (ECMAScript 6 seems to be a step in the right direction), but Ruby? I think not.
-
...and been done with it. I hate camel case, but I'd rather deal with that than the apparent magic going on after def.
I think they borrowed that from Lisp, which also has functions return the last thing evaluated.
-
I just did some readup. Ruby returns the last evaluated expression by default. How an implicit return is more understandable than a explicit return boggles my mind.
-
I think they borrowed that from Lisp, which also has functions return the last thing evaluated.
But it's more that that. It's also not specifying the parameters. I mean, it's a trivial example, and maybe if you're used to that sort of crap not a big deal, but I'd hate to have to deal with that regularly.
-
I wrote a compiler for a language where there were no statements and therefore no return statement.
The language also lacked a > operator. And 1 == null would return false, while null == 1 would crash.
-
But it's more that that. It's also not specifying the parameters. I mean, it's a trivial example, and maybe if you're used to that sort of crap not a big deal, but I'd hate to have to deal with that regularly.
A real example would have the parameters specified.
def print_one(arg1) puts "arg1: #{arg1}" end
-
The
"#{foo}"
syntax is the best part of Ruby. You can put anything you want inside those braces, including expressions that have strings in them. No need for variables to have their own syntax that breaks when you put text right after them.
-
The multiple language runtimes would add bloat to the browser
Agree
Language support would vary between browsers, leading to compatibility issues
No sane person who have developed in JavaScript would defend this with a straight face.
Most programming languages are not designed to run in a sandbox
I have no idea what they're talking about.
Managing the lifetime of DOM objects between multiple language runtimes and the DOM itself would be quite difficult
That's why we should have ditched JavaScript with a more sane language/runtime long time ago. Hell, I really did try, and I bet you Adobe and MS did too.
Anyway, this could have gained some traction 10-15 years ago but not now. JS is here to stay and there's nothing we can do about it.