|
posted by dennisn on November 22nd, 2011 at 10:38PM
I'm pretty sure I already answered all these questions before as well. JS, like Flash, is targeted towards the retarded masses -- the moms and dads who are finally coming online, the hyperactive kids, etc. There is lots of money to take from the millions of them, no doubt.
And, like I remember explaining to you before, there is just about nothing substantial that JS can do, that cannot be done far better with existing languages and software. All it does is helps to centralize the code for a specific company (another great reason for companies to invest in it :), and reduce choice for users (great for newbies).
|
posted by dsk on November 23rd, 2011 at 12:56PM
>JS is targeted towards the retarded masses, the moms and dads who are finally coming online, the hyperactive kids
No it isn't. Many brilliant people are very excited about where the web is heading. The dinosaurs are few and far between.
>there is just about nothing substantial that JS can do, that cannot be done far better with existing languages and software.
That's what I mean when I say you don't get it. That's why you stand alone, while the rest of the world moved on. You're clinging to a deprecated era, for nonsensical reasons.
|
posted by dennisn on November 23rd, 2011 at 1:15PM
Would you stop with the bullshit fictional narratives, and just stick to facts. I realize that you can force JS to do anything you want, if you devote enough time to it. You can even write an OS in PHP -- the question is, do you want to? Now, you've already made your case -- you /want/ the ease-of-use of one-click applications. You either don't see the value of community distributions and decentralized source code management, or feel that the convenience of a company telling you what you can do outweighs the benefits of decentralization. That's fair enough, but don't give me this bullshit that I don't see what it is. I know full well what it is, and to me, whatever gimmicks it has to offer FAR underweigh the benefits of "archaic code distribution".
(But, come on, for fuck's sake, is installing programs normally really such a pain in the ass for you? Is having your browser act as a package manager, with far less end-user-control, really so fucking revolutionary? Really?)
|
posted by dsk on November 23rd, 2011 at 8:04PM
>Would you stop with the bullshit fictional narratives
It's not a narrative. It's a fact. I don't know if you completely lack imagination, simply dense, or stuck in 1998 where you had your golden age.
>You can even write an OS in PHP
Yes. And it would be an interesting exercise. And it would be completely useless. And you notice that it hasn't been done and nobody is pushing for it, or funding it, or excited by the prospect?
It's almost like you're proving my point.
>I know full well what it is
Clearly you don't, because you don't understand it.
>come on, for fuck's sake, is installing programs normally really such a pain in the ass for you
It's stuff like this that shows you don't really understand it. YOU tell me why. Try.
Tell me why it's better for you to host this blog as a web application that all of us can enter simply by typing in a url address, as opposed to you writing the whole thing in C and forcing all of us to install it so that we can read, post and comment via that app only?
Tell me why an IT administrator at a hospital, who manages 5000 workstations, would prefer that an application be browser based, as opposed to one that needs to be installed? Would he prefer to have his weekend free or oversee a security update rollout to 5000 users, and deal with dependency conflicts that may arise on 5% workstations?
Are you an imbecile?
|
|
posted by dennisn on November 23rd, 2011 at 1:22PM
Thought Experiment: I can trivially modify my current OS to support one-click application installation and usage. I can tightly integrate every app together, have them automatically updated, etc. You can think of it as Ubuntu on steroids. The question is, do I want to? Do you?
|
|
|
|
