There's still HTML
-
People keep forgetting that there's more to programming then placing shiny objects on the screen.
-
There's still HTML. What we need is VS to turn our VB or C# code into a web application (HTML + JS) which works in all (current) browsers. We should not have to see the HTML or JS, any more than we see the Asembler of the lower level libraries we use now. Another alternative is that all future browsers support a third language - not HTML or VS. One which works eactly the same way in every browser and which can be authored in multiple higher level languages (e.g. BrowserVB, BrowserC#, BrowserDelphi, BrowseCobol, etc.). I have been waiting for a replacement for the Browser since 1995. If we can't replace it, lets fix it.
Not a new idea. It has been tried by several people. 1. GWT - converts Java to HTML and JavaScript. 2. Sharpkit[^] - converts C# to JS. 3. Script# - not sure what happened to it now.
Member 7703932 wrote:
If we can't replace it, lets fix it.
Just because lot of programmers do not want to get out of their comfort zone of programming in one or two language they have learnt, does not mean that HTML and JS is broken. It is as much broken as any other technology. No technology is perfect. The important thing is how a particular technology is able to solve users problems.
-
What do shiny objects have to do with programming? :wtf: For that matter when did HTML become a programming language? I thought it was used for marking up text that had hyper-links in it...
TRK3 wrote:
What do shiny objects have to do with programming?
According to the current fuss about HTML+JS replacing C(++/#) one would assume shiny objects are the only things programmers are concerned about.
-
TRK3 wrote:
What do shiny objects have to do with programming?
According to the current fuss about HTML+JS replacing C(++/#) one would assume shiny objects are the only things programmers are concerned about.
Well, I can understand the concern with shiny objects -- it horribly complicates visual recognition algorithms when there is glare from too much illumination. But I think the commonly accepted solution is to place a polarized lens over your CCD array. (But I wouldn't use HTML+JS to do my image processing.)
-
There's still HTML. What we need is VS to turn our VB or C# code into a web application (HTML + JS) which works in all (current) browsers. We should not have to see the HTML or JS, any more than we see the Asembler of the lower level libraries we use now. Another alternative is that all future browsers support a third language - not HTML or VS. One which works eactly the same way in every browser and which can be authored in multiple higher level languages (e.g. BrowserVB, BrowserC#, BrowserDelphi, BrowseCobol, etc.). I have been waiting for a replacement for the Browser since 1995. If we can't replace it, lets fix it.
isn't this exactly what Java was supposed to do...? write once, run anywhere.
-
Not a new idea. It has been tried by several people. 1. GWT - converts Java to HTML and JavaScript. 2. Sharpkit[^] - converts C# to JS. 3. Script# - not sure what happened to it now.
Member 7703932 wrote:
If we can't replace it, lets fix it.
Just because lot of programmers do not want to get out of their comfort zone of programming in one or two language they have learnt, does not mean that HTML and JS is broken. It is as much broken as any other technology. No technology is perfect. The important thing is how a particular technology is able to solve users problems.
All that's true. But still, JavaScript is really a nasty language: Everything is global by default? A classic inheritance syntax for prototypal inheritance? No real types? instanceof keyword that behaves differently depending on how you construct the object? equals, double equals, or triple equals? Language automatically inserts semicolons for you, so that this function returns undefined?
function foo() {
return // Oh noes! Javascript will return here, assuming I forgot a semicolon.
{
Bar = 5
};
}Man. Javascript has some really ugly parts. There are a lot of good ideas in Javascript. But I still think C# is a damn fine language, and getting dirty with Javascript has only strengthened that opinion. :-)
Religiously blogging on the intarwebs since the early 21st century: Kineti L'Tziyon
Judah Himango -
All that's true. But still, JavaScript is really a nasty language: Everything is global by default? A classic inheritance syntax for prototypal inheritance? No real types? instanceof keyword that behaves differently depending on how you construct the object? equals, double equals, or triple equals? Language automatically inserts semicolons for you, so that this function returns undefined?
function foo() {
return // Oh noes! Javascript will return here, assuming I forgot a semicolon.
{
Bar = 5
};
}Man. Javascript has some really ugly parts. There are a lot of good ideas in Javascript. But I still think C# is a damn fine language, and getting dirty with Javascript has only strengthened that opinion. :-)
Religiously blogging on the intarwebs since the early 21st century: Kineti L'Tziyon
Judah HimangoIMO the ugliest thing about JS is what's ugly about CSS, knowing that you're not targetting one language, but a ton of different implementations of it.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Someone (JSOP I believe) had a quote in their signature about making a comment a work of art on so many levels. If I could remember it, I think it would be appropriate here.
I was HollyHooo but got tired of it and Sebastien was taken.
The levels of obscenity in your comment make it a work of art on so many levels...
".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 -
The levels of obscenity in your comment make it a work of art on so many levels...
".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 -
The levels of obscenity in your comment make it a work of art on so many levels...
".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, 1997That was it. Thanks! :)
I was HollyHooo but got tired of it and Sebastien was taken.
