I know that IE or Firefox will probably never adopt this tech, but IE will never adopt WebGL, and that's somewhat considered part of the HTML5 stack.
I'm just not a fan of HTML, CSS, and JavaScript for writing apps. Part of the reason is my ignorance, but the other reason is because that stack seems to be a worse is better solution.
Oh well, back to monkeying around with TypeScript.
I thought Java was supposed to be "bytecode for the Web." How is this different? What pain points does it solve that Java Applets don't? (Besides this being new and shiny, while having an applet on your website makes people think you're from the 1990's.)
Java makes a very good bytecode for the web. Applets today are much faster and better integrated than they were when all the hype was about. Java's difficulties are all political. Reading HN will show that regardless of any technical merits Java has, a large number of people will not use the JVM because they consider Java an uncool language or believe that it's still as slow as it was 10 years ago.
Personally, I'm excited about Google's new foray into this territory. While I believe that the JVM is a better option right here and now, coding fashionistas aren't going to touch Java and Oracle's litigious attitude is likely to repel people who would invest in the platform expanding on the web. I believe a bytecode for the web is absolutely the best solution and I want it to happen whoever provides the technology. If Google's attempt gets used, it will get optimised and maybe in a decade be as performant as the JVM is now. That is preferable to Javascript being the ONLY game in town.
* It is native code, unlike Java. Which means you don't need a VM. Only the API's. Java defines both.
* It is not a "black box" in the web page like Java Applets. People would not hate Java Applets if they integrated seamlessly and were built into the browser.
4 comments
[ 3.9 ms ] story [ 16.4 ms ] threadI'm just not a fan of HTML, CSS, and JavaScript for writing apps. Part of the reason is my ignorance, but the other reason is because that stack seems to be a worse is better solution.
Oh well, back to monkeying around with TypeScript.
Personally, I'm excited about Google's new foray into this territory. While I believe that the JVM is a better option right here and now, coding fashionistas aren't going to touch Java and Oracle's litigious attitude is likely to repel people who would invest in the platform expanding on the web. I believe a bytecode for the web is absolutely the best solution and I want it to happen whoever provides the technology. If Google's attempt gets used, it will get optimised and maybe in a decade be as performant as the JVM is now. That is preferable to Javascript being the ONLY game in town.
* It is not a "black box" in the web page like Java Applets. People would not hate Java Applets if they integrated seamlessly and were built into the browser.