- From: Didier PH Martin <martind@netfolder.com>
- Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2004 13:29:49 -0400
Hi Preston, > You know, I have to say this is going in a very javascript-y direction. I > don't know about all of you, but losing the user base that has javascript > disabled just isn't a possibility. I, as a developer, would not use this > language were it based on javascript. Javascript is good for non-essential > things only. a) Do you mean here that you prefer a declarative way to define things? b) that you think that packaging an XBL interpreter in javascript is doomed because people can disable javascript. c) that most javascript implementation is really too slow to make it a success. d) or that javascript is not powerful enough to develop such interpreter? If the answer ia a or b I agree as long as the basic declarations can be extended and there is a specified way to expand it. If the answer is c you are right on previous generation machines but surely not on new ones. They have more power than necessary. If the answer is d, I totally disagree, javascript (ECMASCript) is a powerful language. Off course it's not class based (except in the .net environment) but nonetheless it's a powerful prototype/instance based language. In Mozilla you would be surprise to see how many features are in fact implemented in javascript. Cheers Didier PH Martin
Received on Wednesday, 9 June 2004 10:29:49 UTC