JavaScript Alternatives

[Computer Guru]

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?

[Sam]

btw, AJAX = Asynchronous JavaScript and XML = Javascript

[Computer Guru]

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

[travl0r]

Great article

I have been trying to use JS as less as possible for about ... 4 years hehe

but sometimes you gotta be quick :(

it's a matter of time

[lnmnky]

# "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?

[Computer Guru]

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

[+Nik Louch Subscriber²]

A lot of your issues seem to be with how browsers and developers use JavaScript. The language itself is fine for it's purpose.

[Computer Guru]

But the thing is, when a language ends up being this mutilated and modified across different browsers, at what point does it stop being a browser issue and become a need for a new language?

[lnmnky]

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).

[+Nik Louch Subscriber²]

The language hasn't been mutilated at all. It's usage and interpretation has.

[Computer Guru]

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:

[lnmnky]

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.

[Computer Guru]

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 ;)

[spartyjohnson]

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:

[Computer Guru]

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:

[spartyjohnson]

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...;))

[Computer Guru]

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... ;)

[spartyjohnson]

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.

[Computer Guru]

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!

[lnmnky]

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.

[Computer Guru]

Yeah, that might work..

so long as you manage to restrict javascript or whatever you end up using to <head></head> then put hte rest in a .JS file...

much less work... just need to kick out XHTML 1.2 now ;)

[spartyjohnson]

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.

[Computer Guru]

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

[amrinders87]

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.

[spartyjohnson]

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.

[Josh]

^^^

Same experience. I don't have any problems with Javascript/DHTML... but I'm not doing anything too big with it either at the moment.