|
posted by dennisn on November 23rd, 2011 at 10:09PM
You really have trouble reading. My JavaShit implementation (from Webkit) regularly uses 100%, for many seconds, to load what appears to be a pretty basic webpage -- for many websites. But I guess only your JavaShit implementation counts. (In which case, you really shouldn't be touting JS, but whatever specific fucking implementation it is that you use.)
How the fuck does providing another example of a centrally controlled setup respond to the criticism that JS is centrally controlled crap? I fully acknowledge that this site is shitty, that you can't control it's layout or theme (that much), etc. It would be far better to move it to NNTP, where you could use any of the myriad of newsreader clients that already exist to interact with it.
|
posted by dsk on November 24th, 2011 at 1:30PM
>You really have trouble reading.
You have no reading comprehension. This isn't about wasted cpu cycles of JS engines. If you're using a browser or rendering engine with shit JS, that's your problem. Google's JS engine, for example, is not interpreted but rather compiled straight to native at runtime - and it's really quick. Another example: If you use WebGL the graphics pipeline is offloaded to the GPU - no cpu cycles.
Tell me, if the next generation JS engines is super-fast, would that make a difference to you? No? Then don't throw these red-herrings around.
And it's not about JS either (example: Google wants to put another interpreted language in their browser). It's about what the web is and what it could be and how fuckin stupid you are because you're stuck in 1998.
>How the fuck does providing another example of a centrally controlled setup respond to the criticism that JS is centrally controlled crap?
BECAUSE JS DOES NOT IMPLY A 'CENTRALLY CONTROLLED SETUP' ANY MORE THAN A STRAIGHT HTML PAGE - DUMB FUCK. Seriously do you practice at stupid or does it come naturally faggot?
|
posted by dennisn on November 24th, 2011 at 11:46PM
So, like I said, you aren't boasting about JS -- but about GoogleJS. Big difference.
Yes, an efficient implementation would make a small difference. It was one of the fundamental problems I had with it. (The least important problem I had with it.)
I'm not sure why you're still having trouble understanding the centralization that JS implies. (I'll ignore your asinine equating of a static webpage (text) with a full dynamic application embedded into a webpage.) If I want an email reader, I have a plethora to choose from -- the application is separate from the service. This might seem like a PITA to newbies, but if you take a second to think about it, it makes brilliant sense. A community of self-interested email readers tailor-make their own application, to do exactly what they want, and nothing else. Each individual has full control of the application. An entire community of like-minds vets their own software. Quality control and user-empowerment are maximized. GMail, on the other end, is a specific company's application, that only they control. If you want to use their email services, you are forced to use their application (let's ignore the possibility that they "generously" offer an IMAP interface as well). They can, at a whim, install any backdoor they want, and you, the newbie user, will ignorantly automatically run it -- no community oversight -- no user control.
In conclusion, tempting as the idea of an All-Knowing All-Powerful Altruistic Company is (that benevolently writes and uploads you their own JS programs each time you visit their server), it cannot replace the efficiency and power and goodness of an ad-hoc decentralized community of like-minds. This is why JS (aka. programs) do NOT belong in webpages, no matter how much they sparkle and glitter. It is a fundamental flaw inherent in the very nature of JS.
You can try to wish away the "complexity" of community management and distribution, but as Benjamin Franklin once said, "those who sacrifice freedom for comfort deserve neither, and will lose both."
|
posted by dsk on November 26th, 2011 at 10:47PM
>GMail, on the other end, is a specific company's application, that only they control...let's ignore that they "generously" offer an IMAP interface as well
THIS right here is why you are total, and utter retard. Not half-retard. A full-blown retard. No, let's NOT fuckin ignore that Gmail provies IMAP and POP3 interface. IT'S THE TOTAL FUCKIN SERVICE. If I there was no POP3 and IMAP, I would not use Gmail. I use the web interface 95% of the time. I use Gmail HTML5 offline features. But I still sync my email.
It's like you live in this world of extremes where you have to choose one or the other. You're the only retard in that world. I don't see a contradiction. I use web interface for the convenience and security, but I take care to have my data backed up just in case google bankrupts.
This is true of any other web-based service that handles really important data.
>They can, at a whim, install any backdoor they want
So can your ISP. So can ICANN. So can every other centralized service you defendant on to provide you internet access.
>This is why JS (aka. programs) do NOT belong in webpages, no matter how much they sparkle and glitter. It is a fundamental flaw inherent in the very nature of JS.
No. This is why you're a retard, completely at odds with anyone remotely rational.
>"those who sacrifice freedom for comfort deserve neither, and will lose both.""
Dumbshit - he's not even remotely talking about your bullshit legacy "bring-back-1998-and-best-years-of-my-life" crusade.
|
|
|
|
