Comments on: JavaScript is the new C

By: Ryan Baker

Ryan Baker — Sat, 22 Jul 2006 16:24:26 +0000

Yes you are making sense, in fact I wrote about the same “compile to” trend a bit back at http://ryan-technorabble.blogspot.com/2006/07/javascript-vm.html.

My point is there is a point where the analogy ends, and that could make all the difference in the long term longevity of the language.

It’s not easy to replace JavaScript as the ubiquitous language, but it’s not that hard either. If you convinced Microsoft, FireFox and Opera to support a new language, within 3 years you’d have 98-99% coverage. Supporting an extra language is just extra code in this case.

Changing from C at the OS level however is a completely different question that requires not just a new feature from existing products, but entirely separate products, and the infrastructure built on top of them.

I won’t argue with anyone who uses JavaScript today, because clearly it’s the best option available, today. But at least in my opinion, it’s a poor medium, and far better could be designed, and so I’m left wondering when (and somewhat if), someone will step up and provide that alternative.

By: Jason Huggins

Jason Huggins — Sat, 22 Jul 2006 05:49:34 +0000

Ryan, I guess I’m just trying to make a different point– that JavaScript (and the web) is the new ubiquitous platform that C used to be (and okay, still is).

Just like writing a C library makes that library more accessible to more programming languages, writing a JavaScript library does the same thing for web frameworks.

Separately, I’m seeing JavaScript becoming the new “compile to” target. Example: Rails’ Ajax helpers and Google’s Ajax toolkit compile to JavaScript, they abstract stuff away so you can stay in the safe confines of Ruby and Java, much the same way Ruby and Java protect folks from the ugliness of C.) Howerver, that server-side Ruby and Java code can’t really be shared between framework, just like it’s hard to share a pure Python library with Ruby. But when good stuff (like Prototype) is written in JavaScript, other web frameworks can barrow the goodies easily. I hope I’m making sense, here. :-)

By: Ryan Baker

Ryan Baker — Sat, 22 Jul 2006 05:16:31 +0000

A big difference here is that operating systems were developed in “mostly” C, but browsers aren’t built in JavaScript. It’s popularity these days has to do with it’s ubiquity, but that is where the similarity ends.

With C, OS’s would have had to be rewritten in another language to provide the same level of integration with any other language. With JavaScript you just need a new ubiquitious language. That would take time, but is measurable in years, rather than decades. An order of magnitude can make a big difference.

By: Joshua Volz

Joshua Volz — Sat, 22 Jul 2006 01:56:04 +0000

I think Javascript is the new C because Javascript is the default language of the new platform everyone is trying to program on top of. It used to be that we programmed on top of operating systems, but now we do so on top of browsers. Speaking in the “native” language of your platform is always good.

By: George Jempty

George Jempty — Fri, 21 Jul 2006 22:02:09 +0000

i vote for Lua

By: Jason Huggins

Jason Huggins — Fri, 21 Jul 2006 19:27:36 +0000

Actually, I’m seriously considering porting Lua to the JavaScript “platform”… I’ll post more on that soon. ;-)

By: Jon Gretar

Jon Gretar — Fri, 21 Jul 2006 19:25:33 +0000

It’s interesting that you choose to call it “Stockholm Syndrome“. As that comes into play in hostage situations. So really what you are saying is that JS is holding you hostage against your will. Well. I guess that makes sense.

I personally would love to get RubyScript instead. But since I don’t actually see that happen I will have to make do with JS.