6 ms·

I think its becoming increasingly less necessary to learn something else. I think javascript is, after a decade or so, finally coming into its own. I agree that

I think its becoming increasingly less necessary to learn something else. I think javascript is, after a decade or so, finally coming into its own. I agree that one should use a library that lets someone else deal with the inevitable bullshit of browser compatibility. The question is then, "what language should I use"? I used GWT for example, since I know Java, and I assume there are people who will find noloh easy to pick up because they already know the language. However, javascript is a high level language, so references to assembly and C are straw men. Noloh and GWT add yet another layer of abstraction on top of an already complex system. They offer little advantage beyond familiarity, and prevent comprehension of the system as it really is.

asnyder 16y ago
...references to assembly and C are straw men. Referencing C and assembly are not straw men, in the context of the web and the browser they serve equivalent purposes. They offer little advantage beyond familiarity, and prevent comprehension of the system as it really is Rather than respond with a long post, there are significant advantages to using something like NOLOH instead of JavaScript directly. Rather than going into it detail here, I will merely point to 2 issues of php|architect that go in-depth into the many significant advantages you gain, similarly the noloh.com website goes into some of the advantages in the 3 read-more home blocks: NOLOH: The Comprehensive Framework - http://www.phparch.com/magazine/2010/may/ http://www.phparch.com/magazine/2010/may/ Lightweight, On-demand, and Beyond - http://www.phparch.com/magazine/2010/november/ http://www.phparch.com/magazine/2010/november/
- binaryfinery 16y ago
  Assembly and C are low level languages. Javascript is high level language. The claim appears to be based on the fact that it is the lowest level available in the browser as if this somehow makes it comparable to assembly language, the lowest language available on computers. It is a straw man argument. Saying that they server "equivalent" purposes is bollocks. Using your flawed logic, one could say that because javascript is also the highest level language supported natively by all browsers that it therefor serves the same purpose as HAL in 2001. The fact that various companies have sprung up that can take a language and generate javascript from it doesn't make javascript comparable to assembly. Normally one takes a high level language and compiles it to a lower level language. However, it is not the case that simply compiling one language into another automatically dictates that one is higher than the other. In this case, it is done because javascript is the only language available, and some people don't want to learn it. I suspect that most people are put off learning javascript because the first time they tried it it was a PITA. Especially, it didnt do the same thing in IE as it did in Chrome. So people wrote frameworks like GWT and NOLOH so they could use languages that were familiar to them. I understand why: its easier to solve one unknown at a time. Presented with two problems: a) I don't know javascript and b) browsers are shitty, people decided to tackle problem (b) and ignore problem (a) by writing libraries in their familiar language. Ironically they probably now know more about javascript than anyone else. I'm opting to deal with problem (a) and solve problem (b) by using jQuery. YMMV. As for the advantages of something like NOLOH, yes, sure there are many advantages to using what is essentially big enough to be called middleware. However I suggest that the advantages initially presented by its ease of use will be quickly outweighed by all the things it can't do, or that it demands you do "its way". Perhaps NOLOH is the worlds first middleware that doesnt have this problem, or perhaps its the 2010 version of MFC. The problem is, by the time you find out its the latter, its too late. The risk of that discovery is greater than the learning curve of javascript and modern frameworks. Unlike assembly language.
  - asnyder 16y ago
    I'm too tired to properly respond to this. It's clear that you don't know what NOLOH is, or the advantages it provides. By it's nature, it's not equivalent to GWT, and provides significant advantages over doing web development in most other frameworks or languages. The fact that it abstracts away JavaScript is only one of it's features, and as mentioned previously you can still use JavaScript. Furthermore, if you read the "Lightweight, On-demand, and Beyond" article I linked you to you would've seen how it's not middleware in the traditional sense and actually produces lightweight and on-demand output for target devices that is significantly more optimized and targeted than one could ever hope to do manually. Either way it's irrelevant as this just sidetracks from the real topic of discussion in that it's not necessary to learn or use JavaScript and that in most development cases it's advantageous and faster not to. There was no reason for you to bundle NOLOH negatively in your response without actually taking a hard look at it. From your initial statements it's clear that you don't fully substantiate your arguments, but rather phrase things for most impact, which just makes it very difficult to have a meaningful conversation. Frankly, I'm sick of having these type of discussions on Hacker News, I expect a higher class of individual here, but over the years I've clearly forgotten to lower my expectations. I feel like I'm on Fox news dealing with an aggressive host who isn't listening to what I'm saying and just lists false associations for psychological deception. I'm very comfortable with my history and experience and can't be bullied into thinking otherwise. Your reasoning of the history behind why people wrote frameworks is flawed, but frankly, it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter what I say, or what I link to, or what arguments I present. You have your viewpoint, which is okay. It's clear from the personality type you expose in your response that any further response would fall on deaf ears. An aside, NOLOH has been around in some form since 2005, pre-AJAX craze, so we can definitely appreciate the evolution of the web.
    - spc476 16y ago
      I would have liked to have read both articles you linked to, but in fact, all I got were abstracts pointing to a magazine that costs $5.00 to read. Perhaps it might have been better to link to the actual website: http://www.noloh.com/ http://www.noloh.com/

asnyder 16y ago

...references to assembly and C are straw men. Referencing C and assembly are not straw men, in the context of the web and the browser they serve equivalent purposes. They offer little advantage beyond familiarity, and prevent comprehension of the system as it really is Rather than respond with a long post, there are significant advantages to using something like NOLOH instead of JavaScript directly. Rather than going into it detail here, I will merely point to 2 issues of php|architect that go in-depth into the many significant advantages you gain, similarly the noloh.com website goes into some of the advantages in the 3 read-more home blocks: NOLOH: The Comprehensive Framework - http://www.phparch.com/magazine/2010/may/ http://www.phparch.com/magazine/2010/may/ Lightweight, On-demand, and Beyond - http://www.phparch.com/magazine/2010/november/ http://www.phparch.com/magazine/2010/november/

binaryfinery 16y ago
Assembly and C are low level languages. Javascript is high level language. The claim appears to be based on the fact that it is the lowest level available in the browser as if this somehow makes it comparable to assembly language, the lowest language available on computers. It is a straw man argument. Saying that they server "equivalent" purposes is bollocks. Using your flawed logic, one could say that because javascript is also the highest level language supported natively by all browsers that it therefor serves the same purpose as HAL in 2001. The fact that various companies have sprung up that can take a language and generate javascript from it doesn't make javascript comparable to assembly. Normally one takes a high level language and compiles it to a lower level language. However, it is not the case that simply compiling one language into another automatically dictates that one is higher than the other. In this case, it is done because javascript is the only language available, and some people don't want to learn it. I suspect that most people are put off learning javascript because the first time they tried it it was a PITA. Especially, it didnt do the same thing in IE as it did in Chrome. So people wrote frameworks like GWT and NOLOH so they could use languages that were familiar to them. I understand why: its easier to solve one unknown at a time. Presented with two problems: a) I don't know javascript and b) browsers are shitty, people decided to tackle problem (b) and ignore problem (a) by writing libraries in their familiar language. Ironically they probably now know more about javascript than anyone else. I'm opting to deal with problem (a) and solve problem (b) by using jQuery. YMMV. As for the advantages of something like NOLOH, yes, sure there are many advantages to using what is essentially big enough to be called middleware. However I suggest that the advantages initially presented by its ease of use will be quickly outweighed by all the things it can't do, or that it demands you do "its way". Perhaps NOLOH is the worlds first middleware that doesnt have this problem, or perhaps its the 2010 version of MFC. The problem is, by the time you find out its the latter, its too late. The risk of that discovery is greater than the learning curve of javascript and modern frameworks. Unlike assembly language.
- asnyder 16y ago
  I'm too tired to properly respond to this. It's clear that you don't know what NOLOH is, or the advantages it provides. By it's nature, it's not equivalent to GWT, and provides significant advantages over doing web development in most other frameworks or languages. The fact that it abstracts away JavaScript is only one of it's features, and as mentioned previously you can still use JavaScript. Furthermore, if you read the "Lightweight, On-demand, and Beyond" article I linked you to you would've seen how it's not middleware in the traditional sense and actually produces lightweight and on-demand output for target devices that is significantly more optimized and targeted than one could ever hope to do manually. Either way it's irrelevant as this just sidetracks from the real topic of discussion in that it's not necessary to learn or use JavaScript and that in most development cases it's advantageous and faster not to. There was no reason for you to bundle NOLOH negatively in your response without actually taking a hard look at it. From your initial statements it's clear that you don't fully substantiate your arguments, but rather phrase things for most impact, which just makes it very difficult to have a meaningful conversation. Frankly, I'm sick of having these type of discussions on Hacker News, I expect a higher class of individual here, but over the years I've clearly forgotten to lower my expectations. I feel like I'm on Fox news dealing with an aggressive host who isn't listening to what I'm saying and just lists false associations for psychological deception. I'm very comfortable with my history and experience and can't be bullied into thinking otherwise. Your reasoning of the history behind why people wrote frameworks is flawed, but frankly, it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter what I say, or what I link to, or what arguments I present. You have your viewpoint, which is okay. It's clear from the personality type you expose in your response that any further response would fall on deaf ears. An aside, NOLOH has been around in some form since 2005, pre-AJAX craze, so we can definitely appreciate the evolution of the web.
  - spc476 16y ago
    I would have liked to have read both articles you linked to, but in fact, all I got were abstracts pointing to a magazine that costs $5.00 to read. Perhaps it might have been better to link to the actual website: http://www.noloh.com/ http://www.noloh.com/