• 0

JavaScript Alternatives


Question

I personally hate JavaScript. As I have mentioned before, it is a language that was supposed to be dead by now! Except Google had to come and make AJAX a fashion, and AJAX had to use JavaScript....

Anyway, I took up a personal vendetta against JavaScript... The result is a lengthy post about alternatives to JS. At the moment it is simply a review of different technologies that can be used instead, their pros, their cons, and just how hard they are to use, and how well they display.

Nothing can be exactly like JS.. but that is a good thing :yes:

In a nutshell, my biggest problem with JavaScript is that it tries to do too much, it has too much buggy code, it is largely not XHTML 1.1 compliant (don't even think about XHTML 2.0!), and almost never displays the same or even properly across the major browsers. So I'm going to try to find a viable alternative (or mix of alternatives) that will let us accomplish what we need in a way that will display on the major browsers (here taken to be IE7, Firefox 1.5, and Opera 9) in a code-compliant manner, and more importantly in a simple and bug-free shape.

Get rid of JS for good!

BTW does this go here or in the reviews or how-tos section?

Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/415794-javascript-alternatives/
Share on other sites

Recommended Posts

  • 0

I know :(

But maybe we can make AJAX 2.0 with CSS instead of JS

The only reason I have not jumped to AJAX yet is just that... But read the comments on the link below.. yawnmoth has some code for using AJAX without JS! :yes:

The Trouble with AJAX

  • 0

# "Belive it or not, almost anything that can be done in JavaScript can be done with CSS."

Belive (sic) it or not, you can't do _almost_ everything. You can't even do _almost_ half.

# "JavaScript is that it tries to do too much, it has too much buggy code,"

That's the browser's fault, not the language itself. MS and NS and Moz all have their own ways of doing things.

"Buggy"??? Code has as many bugs as the developer writes. This is any language, not just JS.

#"and almost never displays the same or even properly across the major browsers. "

JS is just logic. It doesn't actually render anything except the mark up language that you tell it to. If there are bugs and differences, it's the developers fault (and perhaps the browsers fault for these differences.) You can't blame the language, the same could be said for C#.net or XSLT.

" "dhtml ...was a new language that came with a purpose, but was for some reason or the other turned down. It is important to note that DHTML quite often worked hand-in-hand with JavaScript to make stunning menus and effects,"

New language? No it wasn't. dhtml = changing css properties with javascript.

# "expect to see pure XML-driven webpages that use different server-side scripts combined with CSS"

Basically, is your point : "Get rid of Javascript and perform everything on the server"?

How about if people write well structured, well commented Javascript using proper naming conventions that displays and renders mark up that is accessible by everyone using a modern browser?

  • 0

Most people I have spoken to have tried *just* that... but JavaScript is buggy.

Wait. Don't get all worked up just yet ;)

JavaScript has 5 different ways to open a link in a new window. Do you know how many of these are cross-browser supporting 100%?

yep. ZERO.

Firefox uses workarounds to MAKE the buggy JavaScript code work.. here: http://neosmart.net/MiddleClick.htm

if you have Avast Browser (???) or IE 7, give it a shot... Try middle clicking a link. in FF (WHICH IGNORES javascript on middle click) they will open properly, but in Avast.. nope, iE7 = nope. Early Opera = nope

  • 0

Wait. Don't get all worked up just yet ;)

I won't. I'm not ranting back, Imagine this is my face :D

I'm all for getting rid of redundant technologies and buggy code, but I don't feel as if it's javascripts fault.

Most of the webs horrors are down to developers. Bad developers who throw the latest fad at their website.

I remember the Maquee plague of 1998/99 and the Flash 4 (with sounds) epidemic of 2000.

The chromeless window fad of 2000/2001 was also a high point ;)

I do honestly think we'll have an ajax red alert in 2006.

Any technology will get tried and tested until death, but I don't think Javascript is going to die any time soon. I don't think it should just yet either.

Perhaps they just need to re-evaluate it, standardise it and removed half of the features to be left with just logic and far fewer methods.

Also, I seriously hope that CSS is never used as an alternative to Javascript for logical programming (as you hinted in your blog).

  • 0

Any technology will get tried and tested until death, but I don't think Javascript is going to die any time soon. I don't think it should just yet either.

Perhaps they just need to re-evaluate it, standardise it and removed half of the features to be left with just logic and far fewer methods.

Also, I seriously hope that CSS is never used as an alternative to Javascript for logical programming (as you hinted in your blog).

Damn! can you belive it never crossed my mind to have JS standardized???? :pinch:

  • 0

Damn! can you belive it never crossed my mind to have JS standardized???? :pinch:

Sarky :p It never crossed their minds :)

I mean - They should revisit it / give it a new name / make the methods consistent / at least make it case sensitive / remove crap like font style methods and redundant pop up methods (nice example by the way) .

I mostly agree, but I put more blame at people like me, the developers. We find something cool, try it out, leave it there. We can't guess what's going to happen in 3 years time to a technology.

For all we know, CSS could be replaced with something even greater, more standardised, etc... etc...

The earth used to be flat remember.

  • 0

thanks ;)

nicely put... but I'm a developer too, and I think the most we can do is try our best to diffrentiate between "fad" and "useful step forward"

Have you seen the registration page on IPB 2.1? very simple and subtle usage of AJAX to check if the email address or username you chose has been used before... if it is ok the feild glows green, and if its not it turns red... nothing overdone...

Then you have Personalized Google Homepages on the other end with drag and drop sentences and everything way over done.. followed closely by Live.com...

Then you have 'too much but dead useful' application of AJAX on the new Kahuna Mail from MS... used to make custom right click menus and drag and drop messages that make you feel you are in Outlook 12..

rambling on and on.. don't even know what i am trying to point out here ;)

  • 0

I have been thinking of this more and more. I think it would be great to create a web scripting language that supports classes, true OOP and is standardized. Input would be taken from the developers of the web browsers, but it wouldn't be up to them to integrate the scripting into the browser. Make it a Browser Helper Object that could integrate with IE, Firefox, Mozilla, and Opera.

Just a thought. :whistle:

  • 0

that is definitely the bud of a good idea.

The fact that it will be externally supported via activeX or whatever by a 3rd party plug in means two things:

1) Users can use their favorite browsers and still experience the web in the latest and most compliant form...

2) It will run slower :( because it is not 100% integrated code.. but I doubt the speed difference would be TOO big.. just the tmie required for ht eplgin to load.. and if it is preloaded....

2) convince firefox and ie and opera to ship it with their product.. cuz god knows most ignorant PC users won't have any idea what the hell it is :rolleyes:

  • 0

Does anybody know of anything that has already been suggested like this? I find it hard to believe that I am the only person that is thinking this thought.

If not, I guess we could startup a sourceforge project, but it would need actual support by developers. My last sourceforge project didn't go over well (Not really management material I guess...;))

  • 0

Well I have quite a few startup projects and stuff... and IMO made out of management material...

But this is a BIG idea.. and needs many developers, some $$$$, and some sponsors....

BTW i am more of a software than web guy.. well, much more... ;)

  • 0

I don't know exactly how to get ahold of those resources. I believe though that if something like this doesn't already exist it would be quickly adopted by the web community because we are not the only people outraged by the current solution of web scripting. Once the adoption of a new technology takes place the rest of the community will follow suit and it will become bundled into browsers.

  • 0

But just the same, anything not XHTML is technically invalid...

My biggest gripe with all these end-user scripts is that they do NOT conform to the W3C revolution of separation of content and display

all display should be in the CSS file, all content should be in the *.htm* file...

so unless you can make a OOP scripting language that goes in the <b>CSS File</b> and then reference it with CSS Tags in teh HTML file, it is not compliant.

And THIS requires a new version of CSS.. which requires W3C support *before* we even begin!

  • 0

so unless you can make a OOP scripting language that goes in the <b>CSS File</b> and then reference it with CSS Tags in teh HTML file, it is not compliant.

Client side scripting in CSS seems even uglier.

It's not logical to suggest that, for example, setting and reading client side cookies should be done in a stylesheet. :s

Content in xhtml

Design in css files in head of xhtml

Client side logic in script files in head of xhtml

Server side logic in code behind page in dotnet (c#, vbscript).

the method seems fine to me, but I agree the language itself needs a tidy.

  • 0

It seems to me that we could simply use a <ref> tag and reference the main class of a script from the HTML file. I have never seen scripting done in CSS and cannot say how that would look, but I think it would be messy to do scripting where layout and presentation are done.

  • 0

Most people I have spoken to have tried *just* that... but JavaScript is buggy.

Wait. Don't get all worked up just yet ;)

JavaScript has 5 different ways to open a link in a new window. Do you know how many of these are cross-browser supporting 100%?

yep. ZERO.

Firefox uses workarounds to MAKE the buggy JavaScript code work.. here: http://neosmart.net/MiddleClick.htm

if you have Avast Browser (???) or IE 7, give it a shot... Try middle clicking a link. in FF (WHICH IGNORES javascript on middle click) they will open properly, but in Avast.. nope, iE7 = nope. Early Opera = nope

I am a web developer and I use Javascript all the time. My code works on Firefox, IE and I never had any complains from customers.

  • 0
Yeah link ref seems to be the most popular now for RSS and CSS and the rest...

Let's keep with *SS them and make it JSS.. JavaScript Super Sized :D

Now you have gone and done it. You have ticked my thinking bone. I wonder if it would be possible to simply use Java to reference the components of the web browser (including the html). I have never tried it before.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • All these CEOs got the biggest boners thinking about firing employees for AI. Turned out it was just a wet dream.
    • And the fact that the majority of people from Poland are white European Christians while the people you are complaining about in post after post are not is just a coincidence... Every sentence in your post I am replying to is racist nonsense. None of it is actually based on any facts whatsoever. All immigrants are seeking a better life too. It's literally the only reason they would risk everything and leave their homes, families, and homeland. They are working and contributing to the economy too, as you even admit. They get the same benefits your partner did AND that YOU are eligible for as well. That is one of the key things of the EU and a mark of a civilization. That is the definition of a society where everyone is given a chance, treated equally and fairly, and is judged by the content of their character, not their different skin color or which version of ignorant superstitious nonsense their parents lied about as children. Racists around the world said the same things about the Irish and Jews and Poles (like your partner) and...every other immigrant movement over the centuries. What's your family's heritage, by the way? Were your ancestors lied about with racist fearmongering crapola by self-entitled locals the same way as you are now? If someone like that said the same things about all people from Poland, like your partner, would they be right? Or would you want them to judge your partner based on who they actually were, not where they just happened to come from?
    • Again, this is an irrelevant attempt to attack the messenger. The truth does not require any justification.
    • Removed the blue and underline as you did not post a link. This would also  be considered spamming.
    • Why it's almost impossible to produce a smartphone in the United States by Hamid Ganji If you look at the back of some Apple products, you can see the famous phrase “Designed by Apple in California, Assembled in China.” This phrase appears on products from one of the largest smartphone brands in the United States. These products are designed in the U.S., but their manufacturing takes place in China, India, Vietnam, or even Brazil. But why can’t Apple, as one of the largest American tech companies, produce its iPhones on U.S. soil? The idea for this topic came to me after the Trump Foundation launched a smartphone called the T1 and claimed that it was designed and built with American values in mind. However, this claim did not last long, as it was revealed that Trump’s phone was actually a rebranded HTC U24 Pro, with only a gold case and minor internal component changes. You see? Even a phone that is supposed to represent American values is manufactured in China. With a gross domestic product (GDP) exceeding $32 trillion, the United States is currently the world’s largest economy, while China ranks second with around $20 trillion. On the other hand, the United States is by a wide margin the global leader in various technological fields, and American companies spend hundreds of billions of dollars annually on research and development. From Apple and Google to Microsoft, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and others, American tech and industrial giants lead their foreign competitors in many sectors. The United States also has no shortage of smartphone brands. Apple, Google, and Motorola are among the major brands in the smartphone market, collectively holding a significant share. However, the vast majority of their products are manufactured outside the United States. So why is it that the world’s largest economy, home to the most advanced technology companies and industrial powers, cannot produce a smartphone on its own soil? Let’s explore this question together. Even threats to impose tariffs won’t work After Trump entered the White House as the 47th President of the United States, his administration adopted strict tariff policies. One of these policies was the imposition of a 25% tariff on smartphones manufactured outside the United States. Trump said he “had a little problem” with Apple CEO Tim Cook over producing smartphones outside the U.S. So he thought that threatening a 25% tax on imported phones might force Apple to bring manufacturing back to the United States. “I have long ago informed Tim Cook of Apple that I expect their iPhones that will be sold in the United States of America will be manufactured and built in the United States, not India, or anyplace else,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. Image via The White House Although Apple currently manufactures some of the iPhone’s chips in the United States with TSMC's help, it still shows no willingness to shift full iPhone production to the country. At the time, renowned Apple supply chain analyst Ming-Chi Kuo wrote on X, “In terms of profitability, it’s way better for Apple to take the hit of a 25% tariff on iPhones sold in the US market than to move iPhone assembly lines back to the US.” However, manufacturing a smartphone in the United States is not as easy as it might seem, and many technical and economic barriers are involved. The lack of necessary manufacturing hubs There is a clear reason why many companies prefer to manufacture their products in China. China has established itself as the main global manufacturing hub for international companies, and over the past few decades, large contract manufacturers have emerged there, allowing companies like Apple to outsource production. One such example is Foxconn, which also manufactures some Apple products in India. Building the infrastructure required to produce smartphones in the United States would require tens of billions of dollars in new investment. Factories would need to be built, essential manufacturing equipment would have to be installed, and, most importantly, a skilled workforce capable of operating these systems would need to be recruited and trained. The United States currently lacks the core infrastructure needed to manufacture smartphones, and for this reason, many companies prefer to outsource production to Chinese contractors rather than spend tens of billions of dollars to build that infrastructure, which is significantly more economically efficient. Additionally, building such infrastructure in the United States could take up to a decade, ultimately leading to a significant increase in the product's final price for consumers. Shortage of trained labor in the U.S. compared to China Decades of serving as a global manufacturing hub have allowed China to build a massive talent pool in the production sector that is almost unmatched worldwide. Today, if a company chooses to manufacture its products in China, it can be confident that the workers involved in production have years of experience in their respective roles and are capable of producing high-quality goods with minimal errors. Even if we assume that tens of billions of dollars were invested in building smartphone manufacturing infrastructure in the United States, finding skilled workers would remain highly challenging. Apple CEO Tim Cook visiting the iPhone 6 assembly line in China in 2014. Image: Tim Cook on X In a 2015 interview on CBS’s 60 Minutes, Tim Cook said the main reason Apple isn’t producing in the US is a lack of skills. "China put an enormous focus on manufacturing, in what you and I would call vocational kind of skills. The US over time began to stop having as many vocational kinds of skills. I mean you could take every tool and die maker in the United States and probably put them in the room that we're currently sitting in. In China you would have to have multiple football fields,” Cook said. Also, in 2017, at the Fortune Global Forum in Guangzhou, Cook once again emphasized the importance of highly skilled Chinese workers. “China has moved into very advanced manufacturing, so you find in China the intersection of craftsman kind of skill, and sophisticated robotics and the computer science world. That intersection, which is very rare to find anywhere, that kind of skill, is very important to our business because of the precision and quality level that we like. The thing that most people focus on if they’re a foreigner coming to China is the size of the market, and obviously, it’s the biggest market in the world in so many areas. But for us, the number one attraction is the quality of the people,” Apple CEO said. Higher labor costs in the United States Producing almost any product in the United States is more expensive than in many other countries, and one of the main reasons is the higher cost of labor in the U.S. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, median weekly earnings of full-time workers in the United States were $1,235 in the first quarter of 2026. Meanwhile, the average annual salary in China's private sector in 2025 was RMB 71,590 (US$9,961). In many parts of the world, the weekly wage of an American worker is equivalent to several months of income. Another important factor to consider is that in the United States, the workforce capable of working on a smartphone assembly line is highly specialized and therefore commands higher-than-average wages. According to an estimate by Bank of America, producing an iPhone in the U.S. is technically possible, but “iPhone cost can increase 25% purely on higher labor cost in the U.S.” However, this 25% increase applies only if final assembly is performed in the United States while components are still sourced from China or elsewhere. In this case, the price of a base iPhone would rise from $799 to around $1,000. But in another scenario, if Apple were to produce the required components for the iPhone within the United States, production costs could increase by more than 90%. Trump’s dream for a “Made in the USA” iPhone might never come true In a free-market capitalist economy, one of the primary responsibilities of any CEO is to maximize profit. Using Apple as an example, Tim Cook’s role is to maximize the company’s profits so that it can fund research and development for new products and invest in areas such as artificial intelligence, while also keeping shareholders satisfied. Therefore, it is entirely understandable that Apple would choose not to bring its manufacturing back to the United States and instead keep production in countries where labor is cheaper, and products can be manufactured at a lower cost, thereby maximizing its profit margins. What is your opinion about manufacturing smartphones in the United States? If you are an American citizen, would you be willing to pay hundreds of dollars more for a smartphone made domestically in the USA? Let us know in the comments.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Conversation Starter
      jessse3334 earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • Reacting Well
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • One Month Later
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      506
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      196
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      153
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      72
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      65
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!