What If
-
Rama Krishna Vavilala wrote:
You can already do it through JScript.NET (nonetheless).
Rama Krishna Vavilala wrote:
Again, there are some libraries which already provide features which are close to WPF.
You can already do most of what I said in JavaScript. I'm talking about Visual Studio making it mainstream and easy (and better than the current implementations).
Rama Krishna Vavilala wrote:
No. If you do not twist JavaScript to adapt to these conventions, it is far more powerful. Why bloat JS when there is no need to.
What I was really talking about in that case was adding a JavaScript library that has knowledge of this pseudo form of generics. It wouldn't require JavaScript itself to be adapted in any way (the syntax I gave in the example is valid JavaScript). Visual Studio would support it by providing that library and by giving you fancy features, such as intellisense appropriate for the generic type and compile-time type checking.
Rama Krishna Vavilala wrote:
does not matter.
Perhaps to you. However, I know there are those out there who would not consider HTML/JavaScript development if it didn't have good 3D support.
Rama Krishna Vavilala wrote:
I am happy now.
Well alright then. :)
Help a brotha out and vote Managing Your JavaScript Library in ASP.NET as the best ASP.NET article of May 2011.
AspDotNetDev wrote:
What I was really talking about in that case was adding a JavaScript library that has knowledge of this pseudo form of generics.
Yes I understood what you were talking. People have tried simulating classes, interfaces etc in JS using libraries. It is al possible but very bloated. The workarounds are far simpler and far faster.
-
Not really sure what your point is. Could you clarify?
Help a brotha out and vote Managing Your JavaScript Library in ASP.NET as the best ASP.NET article of May 2011.
-
What if HTML/JavaScript really were the only way to go from Windows 8 and onward? What if you were given access to the entire .Net Framework from JavaScript? What if the IDE verified JavaScript variable types at compile time? What if Visual Studio supported a pseudo form of generics (e.g.,
var myList = new List.of(String)(constructorParameter);)? What if the framework included full support for 3D in the canvas? What if Visual Studio included a JavaScript library capable of just as complex graphics and just as sophisticated events/binding as is possible with WPF? What if every obstacle that currently exists in JavaScript development that is possible to overcome was done so by the new Visual Studio? Would you be happy to develop desktop applications using HTML/JavaScript then? EDIT: Also, it would be perfect if Microsoft's new fancy JavaScript library was accessed via a jQuery-like variable/function, "M$". ;)Help a brotha out and vote Managing Your JavaScript Library in ASP.NET as the best ASP.NET article of May 2011.
I'd site in a corner and cry... Then learn HTML and JavaScript.
It's an OO world.
-
I love the naivety. Thanks for making me smile.
Forgive your enemies - it messes with their heads
My blog | My articles | MoXAML PowerToys | Mole 2010 - debugging made easier - my favourite utility
-
AspDotNetDev wrote:
Would you be happy to develop desktop applications using HTML/JavaScript then?
Are you nuts? Not just no, but hell no. Marc
Why the hell not?
Help a brotha out and vote Managing Your JavaScript Library in ASP.NET as the best ASP.NET article of May 2011.
-
I seem to remember you saying the same thing about C# at some point. With the current engines js is already compiled and with things like typed arrays, so it's not slow anymore. The only question is how sophisticated the optimizations get with each release.
Curvature of the Mind now with 3D
Just because I code in .Net doesn't mean my views of it has changed. It just means that if you want to be able get a job as a programmer, you often have to do a lot shit that you don't really like.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997 -
AspDotNetDev wrote:
What I was really talking about in that case was adding a JavaScript library that has knowledge of this pseudo form of generics.
Yes I understood what you were talking. People have tried simulating classes, interfaces etc in JS using libraries. It is al possible but very bloated. The workarounds are far simpler and far faster.
Right, but if we are talking about making current C# and VB.NET developers comfortable with JavaScript, they're probably going to want generics. Not to mention interoperability with the .Net Framework (which is filled with generics). And I can imagine a JIT compiled version of JavaScript that makes use of generics being much faster than the current simple workarounds, especially when interacting with native .Net libraries.
Help a brotha out and vote Managing Your JavaScript Library in ASP.NET as the best ASP.NET article of May 2011.
-
I'd site in a corner and cry... Then learn HTML and JavaScript.
It's an OO world.
:laugh: That's the spirit!
Help a brotha out and vote Managing Your JavaScript Library in ASP.NET as the best ASP.NET article of May 2011.
-
Why the hell not?
Help a brotha out and vote Managing Your JavaScript Library in ASP.NET as the best ASP.NET article of May 2011.
AspDotNetDev wrote:
Why the hell not?
The first thing I can think of is the nightmare of browser incompatibilities. I can't imagine that browsers and platforms would be 100% interchangeable with the same HTML/JavaScript, even backed by a .NET framework, 3D modeling, etc. Each would end up with a subset of the implementation, or some quirks, or whatever. Basically, the same problem we have today. Marc
-
That's ok until you want to write software. You know, that needs to carry out the task before the user falls asleep.
Join the cool kids - Come fold with us[^] "Program as if the technical support department is full of serial killers and they know your home address" - Ray Cassick Jr., RIP
Trollslayer wrote:
You know, that needs to carry out the task before the user falls asleep.
JS was slow ages back. With V8 engine and corresponding changes in JavaScriptCore (Webkit) which JIT compile to native code, JS probably can match .Net speed. I think IE9 JS engine also JIT Compiles to native code (though I am not so sure). Regardless, do you know that JS is already in use in UI of many devices such as TVs and set-top boxes. For "most" UI/Form work, the speed between interpreted languages and compiled languages do not matter a lot.
-
Right, but if we are talking about making current C# and VB.NET developers comfortable with JavaScript, they're probably going to want generics. Not to mention interoperability with the .Net Framework (which is filled with generics). And I can imagine a JIT compiled version of JavaScript that makes use of generics being much faster than the current simple workarounds, especially when interacting with native .Net libraries.
Help a brotha out and vote Managing Your JavaScript Library in ASP.NET as the best ASP.NET article of May 2011.
AspDotNetDev wrote:
Right, but if we are talking about making current C# and VB.NET developers comfortable with JavaScript
That was tried with Microsoft ASP.NET Ajax which turned out to be bloated. MS finally moved to jQuery which is easier and simple. Twisting a language like that usually turns out to be bad idea.
-
(I don't work for MS, exodus from VS would've been more accurate.) Same thing I do now, browse CP all day ;)
"I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours. " — Hunter S. Thompson
wizardzz wrote:
Same thing I do now, browse CP all day
ROFL :thumbsup:
The 3-legged stool of understanding is held up by history, languages, and mathematics. Equipped with these three you can learn anything you want to learn. But if you lack any one of them you are just another ignorant peasant with dung on your boots. R. A. H.
-
Trollslayer wrote:
You know, that needs to carry out the task before the user falls asleep.
JS was slow ages back. With V8 engine and corresponding changes in JavaScriptCore (Webkit) which JIT compile to native code, JS probably can match .Net speed. I think IE9 JS engine also JIT Compiles to native code (though I am not so sure). Regardless, do you know that JS is already in use in UI of many devices such as TVs and set-top boxes. For "most" UI/Form work, the speed between interpreted languages and compiled languages do not matter a lot.
Acutally Java is used in the top level user interface, I know because I work on them. Webkit isn't that fast since it only compiles to byte code not native code. All the 'heavy lifting' to use someone else's term is done in C.
Join the cool kids - Come fold with us[^] "Program as if the technical support department is full of serial killers and they know your home address" - Ray Cassick Jr., RIP
-
I'd site in a corner and cry... Then learn HTML and JavaScript.
It's an OO world.
Naerling wrote:
I'd site in a corner and cry... Then learn HTML and JavaScript.
That is, of course, the only answer a professional should give. Those who code only for love and not for money have a freedom that many others lack.
The 3-legged stool of understanding is held up by history, languages, and mathematics. Equipped with these three you can learn anything you want to learn. But if you lack any one of them you are just another ignorant peasant with dung on your boots. R. A. H.
-
Not really sure what your point is. Could you clarify?
Help a brotha out and vote Managing Your JavaScript Library in ASP.NET as the best ASP.NET article of May 2011.
-
Acutally Java is used in the top level user interface, I know because I work on them. Webkit isn't that fast since it only compiles to byte code not native code. All the 'heavy lifting' to use someone else's term is done in C.
Join the cool kids - Come fold with us[^] "Program as if the technical support department is full of serial killers and they know your home address" - Ray Cassick Jr., RIP
Trollslayer wrote:
Webkit isn't that fast since it only compiles to byte code not native code.
That was long before. Since Safari 3.2 (I think) Webkit compiles to native code. As you can see from the source code here: http://trac.webkit.org/browser/branches/safari-533-branch/JavaScriptCore/assembler[^]
-
AspDotNetDev wrote:
Why the hell not?
The first thing I can think of is the nightmare of browser incompatibilities. I can't imagine that browsers and platforms would be 100% interchangeable with the same HTML/JavaScript, even backed by a .NET framework, 3D modeling, etc. Each would end up with a subset of the implementation, or some quirks, or whatever. Basically, the same problem we have today. Marc
What would be the problem with that, if what we are talking about is Windows 8 desktop development? Suppose Microsoft made available a JavaScript library that works on other browsers, but is obviously going to be slower for certain features (e.g., 3D stuff). At least, I don't see how that's any worse than what we have today. You get a good development experience and performance on Windows, and you get interoperability with other platforms (though with reduced performance). That even adds one bonus... you only have to implement it once and you only have to know one language (JavaScript).
Help a brotha out and vote Managing Your JavaScript Library in ASP.NET as the best ASP.NET article of May 2011.
-
AspDotNetDev wrote:
Right, but if we are talking about making current C# and VB.NET developers comfortable with JavaScript
That was tried with Microsoft ASP.NET Ajax which turned out to be bloated. MS finally moved to jQuery which is easier and simple. Twisting a language like that usually turns out to be bad idea.
One might consider jQuery a "twisting" of the language. All I'm really talking about is making a library (like jQuery) that has some nice generics features and modifying Visual Studio to take full advantage of that library. And what we are talking about is a bit different than what has been done before because it would be aimed primarily at Windows development.
Help a brotha out and vote Managing Your JavaScript Library in ASP.NET as the best ASP.NET article of May 2011.
-
Acutally Java is used in the top level user interface, I know because I work on them. Webkit isn't that fast since it only compiles to byte code not native code. All the 'heavy lifting' to use someone else's term is done in C.
Join the cool kids - Come fold with us[^] "Program as if the technical support department is full of serial killers and they know your home address" - Ray Cassick Jr., RIP
Trollslayer wrote:
I know because I work on them
Yes there are many different kinds of settop boxes. Lot of them embed the Opera browser and allow developers to use JavaScript.
-
I didnt read up to the point where he clarifid hes talking about desktop. :) In that case it hardly will be a JavaScript, but rather a client side C# clone.
kamennik wrote:
I didnt read up to the point where he clarifid hes talking about desktop.
"hes talking about desktop"? Did you mean to post this reply to Pete? (I am the OP, so I am "he" who clarified about desktop development).
kamennik wrote:
In that case it hardly will be a JavaScript, but rather a client side C# clone.
No, it would still be perfectly valid JavaScript syntax. And the libraries would be made available to other browsers. This would give developers the distinct advantage of learning one language (that is higher level than C++) which can be used on many platforms.
Help a brotha out and vote Managing Your JavaScript Library in ASP.NET as the best ASP.NET article of May 2011.
