I don't think I need to provide examples because every web developer knows that you need to test your Javascript to make sure it's compatible across different browsers. What I don't get is why. Isn't Javascript Javascript? It'd be like the .NET framework behaving differently on one computer than it does on another. Can anyone shed some light on this, possibly with some source links to go along with their answer?
The short answer is every browser writes it's own interpreter for JS
The long answer
To understand why a programming language functions differently you have to understand what happens to a programming language at execution. First there are two types of languages interpreted and compiled. Compiled languages are turned from people readable "code" to machine code before execution and distributed as a binary.
Interpreted languages are compiled on the fly, JS is one of those languages. What does it mean to compile a language on the fly? Well, a computer can understand nothing but 1's and 0's and because of this all higher level languages must be broken down to instructions and then binary. When something is compiled on the fly it compiles a line, then runs it, then compiles the next. (of course there are intricacies but that really is the short of it)
Because JS really has never had a stand alone interpreter until recently, and the browser is JS's main purpose every company had to write their own interpreter that would go into their browser. Microsoft, Mozilla, Netscape... Everyone needed to think of how certain things could be handled and then execute them.
Because of this two things happen first, you are never gonna get the same thing if two people are working on it. Think about when you take an intro to Comp Sci course everyone has to make a calculator app but everyone takes a different approach. That happens all the time with js, and causes some browsers to crawl while others fly.
The second is that companies get set in their ways, they have too much time and energy invested in their interpreter and don't want to start over when modifying works and is cheaper. This means that differences that arose in the past when JS was less used and no where near as critical to web development will remain just because it's really difficult to roll out a whole new version of IE with webkit when it has been centered around it's own interpreter for years.
Read this -> http://www.quirksmode.org/js/intro.html there are lots of version of the JavaScript implementation - all of them have differences.
Each browser has a different version of Javascript, and some implement only certain features of each version. Here are the releases notes for IE9, that state javascript performs differently on IE8 and IE9.
Here is a list of versions.
usually, there is not different of javascript language between different browser, the problem is that DOM, HTML and event are different in different browsers.
some javascript library can help reduce gap, ie: jQuery (only reduce gap)
Well, javascript is in fact a subset of EcmaScript which is a standard recommendation. The implementation of this recommandation among the browsers depends only of the willingness of the editors. This leads to several implementation (javascript, jscript, v8, etc...) all behaving differently in certain cases. Add to this that the layout engine differs from browser to browser (gecko, trident, webkit, etc...) and you'll see that it's not that simple to use javascript ;) .
Well, as a matter of fact, .NET does behave differently, depending on which implementation (Microsoft's or Mono) you use.
That said, it is the same with Javascript, with the small exception, that the standard is a moving target. It was introduced back in the days by Netscape, copied partly by Microsoft as JScript, standardized partly by ECMA and extended independently by the browser vendors, each one with their own idea of what would be a good idea to have in Javascript.
It's hard to define the Javascript. What is usually implemented as a baseline in all nowadays browsers is the feature set known as Javascript 1.5 aka ECMA-262 3rd edition. The browser vendors (and others) work on something called ECMAScript 5, but it will last years, until all browsers support this fully.
And then of course, every browser has its own bugs in its implementation. One of the most (in-)famous examples is the trailing comma thing in IE:
// works in all browsers:
var a = [1, 2, 3]
// works in all browsers but IE
var b = [1, 2, 3,]
Internet Explorer has JScript, this is Microsoft own JavaScript implementation. They have a long story of not following any specifications.
As for the others - they make their own implementations of the functions and objects in JavaScript. For example you have a theoretical function foo, and it is the same name on every browser. But the way it is written is different. Which may cause difference in the time for the execution or something else.
One other thing - every browser has its own specific functions. Nobody can force them not to have such.
I want to program my xhtml Web Applications without javascript.
What are the alternatives for creating interactive xhtml web applications?
Perhaps java applets which do the tasks of javascript?
Or is there another way?
Thanks for any help!
Javascript is hard to debug, is dynamically typed, strange OOP, could be replaced by any other language when that language will be cut to work at a browser.
I would also like some typesafety in my code what can discover many bugs before running the code.
--EDIT 2--
Have a look at http://www.scala-js.org/.
---EDIT---
So for now there is no real alternative to javascript what is as flexible, widespread and applicable.
What i think is applicable are frameworks/tools who compile one language to another like GWT or coffescript.
Thank you for the detailed answers. The reason for my question was, that web development is getting more complex every day. I prefer languages like Java for stable error outlining and type safety. JavaScript on the other hand is (in my opinion) mysterious in its ways and hard to debug (browser incompatibilities, silent errors, unintuitive operands, dynamic typing,....). I developed Websites with JS for years now and it feels horrible to me due to such debugging problems and code management. Yet the libraries are quite powerful and ease much of the work.
To have an interactive site you need something that can execute code on the client machine.
This is (at the moment) usually JavaScript. In the past this would have also included Flash or Silverlight (both of which are now on the wane).
JavaScript has a big advantage in that it can easily manipulate the HTML elements directly. While it is possible to do that with Silverlight it's not as easy as Silverlight is designed primarily to build self-contained objects.
Google Web Toolkit GWT lets you write java code which compiles to client-side xhtml+javascript. It relinquishes the page-based standard web approach for a more desktop-like interaction (if I remember correctly the API is somewhat similar to many desktop windowing toolkits).
You may (but don't have to) also develop the (java) server logic and have some client-server communication baked in for you by the compiler.
Have a look at http://code.google.com/intl/it-IT/webtoolkit/
Some JavaScript alternatives:
Flash
Silverlight
Java applets
This is not a recommendation, just a list.
If you're really that allergic to JavaScript, there are a number of frameworks that let you write server-side code which generates the JS for you, as other answers mention.
Check out Google Dart - it has reached 1.0 recently, and has started standardization process few days ago (ECMA TC52). It also compatible with currently available browser via highly optimizing dart2js translator, so you can start using it right now :). Much more sane language than JavaScript, IMO.
More can find more information on the official page here: https://www.dartlang.org/ (tools, documentation, sample code, tutorials), and there is also nice introductory video on the YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqsU3TbUw_s.
As well as applets you have Adobe Flash, Microsoft Silverlight, shortly Chrome NACL. None of these interact with the HTML DOM as seamlessly as JavaScript though.
One thing you can do is simply have the server-side code do all of the processing. You limit yourself to having only CSS available for interactivity, but you can still do just about everything by loading a new page.
If you're considering java applets, then I guess it's necessary to mention Flash and Silverlight (*).
Of course, there are "interactive" web applications that don't use javascript... they use postback. But I don't think this is what you mean.
If you want to target just Internet Explorer, you can use VBScript (Microsoft's proprietary javascript) or even ActiveX. But I doubt that's what you mean, too.
So the onus is on you to answer — why not javascript?
(*) I guess.
I'd be very interested to know what your reasons are for not wanting to use Javascript? The answer to that question will make a big difference to how your question should be answered.
The Javascript language is actually quite powerful. Yes, it does have some quirks, but so do all other languages. A lot of the perceived "problems" with Javascript development in the browser are actually people having issues with the DOM rather than Javascript itself. The DOM, on the other hand is where a lot of the shortcomings and the cross browser issues crop up.
If this is where your problems lie, then you may be better off using a Javascript library such as JQuery, which abstracts away a lot of the direct access to the DOM, and resolves a lot of the cross-browser issues.
If you're using the latest browsers, a lot of the simple effects that previously required Javascript can now be done using CSS. drop-down menus, tabsets, fading, rotation and transition effects. All of this can be done with CSS. However most of them are quite new, and not available in all browsers currently in common use, so you would be better off sticking to Javascript for at least some of them for the time being. Even when they are ready for mainstream use, you'll still need some Javascript to hook them all together.
If you do really have a burning desire to develop using a language other than Javascript, then as you already pointed out, there are other options for programming on the web, such as Java applets. There's also ActiveX controls, Flash and Silverlight, and a few others. However none of them are universally available to all users in the way that Javascript is.
All of them require browser plug-ins of one sort or another, and all of them have issues with users who don't want to install them or corporate environments that don't allow them to be installed. In the case of technologies like ActiveX, they may only be available on certain browsers and operating systems, and (again like ActiveX) they often have security issues.
The only real reason that most of these other technologies existed in the first place was to fill a gap in the capabilities of the browsers at the time. All of these capability issues have now been resolved -- with HTML5 and related technologies driven by Javascript, Flash and Silverlight have been rendered obsolete; ActiveX controls were considered obsolete long ago; and when was the last time you saw a Java applet in mainstream use?
The bottom line is that the browser world is moving very rapidly away from any client-side code other than Javascript, and there are very good reasons for that.
Use pyjamas (google it), you can write normal python code and have it compiled as javascript so you get the best of both worlds, the power and expressiveness of python and the ubiquity of javascript.
Also keep an eye on the Falcon project by Adobe, it's an experimental compiler which translates actionscript 3 (a very powerful language compared to plain javascript) and the flex framework to javascript.
You can also try GWT by Google, where java is used as the client side building code (and yes, it also gets compiled to native javascript).
If it runs on the client's computer and can modify the DOM, it can work. JavaScript is the most widely supported so it'll work out-of-the-box for many people.
Basically, anything which functions like JavaScript can replace it.
Flash can perform basically everything that JavaScript can (graphically, but it can't modify the DOM), but if the user doesn't have Flash Player installed, you're out of luck.
Java can also work, but the same concept applies: if the user doesn't have JRE (or a similar machine)
Silverlight is similar to Flash, but much less supported (I can barely get it to work on my Linux box)
Just curious: why are you looking to replace JavaScript with something else?
This may seem inane, but I actually like using jQuery much better than JavaScript. It makes event handling and Ajax very simple.
I'm not a JavaScript wiz, but is it possible to create a single embeddable JavaScript file that makes all browsers standards compliant? Like a collection of all known JavaScript hacks that force each browser to interpret the code properly?
For example, IE6 does not recognize the :hover pseudo-class in CSS for anything except links, but there exists a JavaScript file that finds all references to :hover and applies a hack that forces IE6 to do it right, allowing me to use the hover command as I should.
There is an unbelievable amount of time (and thus money) that every webmaster has to spend on learning all these hacks. Imagine if there was an open source project where all one has to do is add one line to the header embedding the code and then they'd be free to code their site per accepted web standards (XHTML Strict, CSS3).
Plus, this would give an incentive for web browsers to follow the standards or be stuck with a slower browser due to all the JavaScript code being executed.
So, is this possible?
Plus, this would give an incentive for web browsers to follow the standards or be stuck with a slower browser due to all the JavaScript code being executed.
Well... That's kind of the issue. Not every incompatibility can be smoothed out using JS tricks, and others will become too slow to be usable, or retain subtle incompatibilities. A classic example are the many scripts to fake support for translucency in PNG files on IE6: they worked for simple situations, but fell apart or became prohibitively slow for pages that used such images creatively and extensively.
There's no free lunch.
Others have pointed out specific situations where you can use a script to fake features that aren't supported, or a library to abstract away differences. My advice is to approach this problem piecemeal: write your code for a decent browser, restricting yourself as much as possible to the common set of supported functionality for critical features. Then bring in the hacks to patch up the browsers that fail, allowing yourself to drop functionality or degrade gracefully when possible on older / lesser browsers.
Don't expect it to be too easy. If it was that simple, you wouldn't be getting paid for it... ;-)
Check out jQuery it does a good job of standardizing browser javascript
Along those same lines explorercanvas brings support for the HTML5 canvas tag to IE browsers.
You can't get full standards compliance, but you can use a framework that smooths over some of the worst breaches. You can also use something called a reset style sheet.
There's a library for IE to make it act more like a standards-compliant browser: Dean Edwards' IE7.
Like a collection of all known
javascript hacks that force each
browser to interpret the code properly
You have two choices: read browser compatibility tables and learn each exception a browser has and create one yourself, or use avaiable libraries.
If you want a javascript correction abstraction, you can use jQuery.
If you want a css correction abstraction, you can check /IE7/.
I usually don't like to use css corrections made by javascript. It's another complexity to my code, another library that can insert bugs to already bugged browsers. I prefer creating conditional statements to ie6, ie7 and such and create separate stylesheets for each of them. This approach works and doesn't generate a lot of overhead.
EDIT: (I know that we have problems in other browsers, but since IE is the major browser out there and usually we need really strange hacks to make it work, css conditional statements is a good approach IMO).
Actually you can,there are lots of libraries to handle this issue. From the start of the time, javascript compliance issue always was a problem for developers and thanks to innovative ones who developed libraries to get over this problem...
One of them and my favorite is JQuery.
Before JavaScript 1.4 there was no global arguments Array, and it is impossible to implement the arguments array yourself without a highly advanced source filter. This means it is going to be impossible for the language to maintain backwards-compatibility with Netscape 4.0 and Internet Explorer 4.0. So right out I can say that no, you cannot make all browser standards compliant.
Post-netscape, you can implement nearly all of the features in the core of the language in JavaScript itself. For example, I coded all methods of the Array object in 100% JavaScript code.
http://openjsan.org/doc/j/jh/jhuni/StandardLibrary/1.81/index.html
You can see my implementation of Array here if you go to the link and then go down to Array and then "source."
What most of you are probably referring to is implementing the DOM objects yourself, which is much more problematic. Using VML you can implement the Canvas tag across all the modern browsers, however, you will get a buggy/barely-working performance in Internet Explorer because VML is markup which is not a good format for implementing the Canvas tag...
http://code.google.com/p/explorercanvas/
Flash/Silverlight: Using either of these you can implement the Canvas tag and it will work quite well, you can also implement sound. However, if the user doesn't have any browser plugins there is nothing you can do.
http://www.schillmania.com/projects/soundmanager2/
DOM Abstractions: On the issue of the DOM, you can abstract away from the DOM by implementing your own Event object such as in the case of QEvent, or even implementing your own Node object like in the case of YAHOO.util.Element, however, these usually have some subtle changes to the standard API, so people are usually just abstracting away from the standard, and there is hundreds of cases of libraries that abstract away.
http://code.google.com/p/qevent/
This is probably the best answer to your question. It makes browsers as standards-compliant as possible.
http://dean.edwards.name/weblog/2007/03/yet-another/
Would it not make sense to support a set of languages (Java, Python, Ruby, etc.) by way of a standardized virtual machine hosted in the browser rather than requiring the use of a specialized language -- really, a specialized paradigm -- for client scripting only?
To clarify the suggestion, a web page would contain byte code instead of any higher-level language like JavaScript.
I understand the pragmatic reality that JavaScript is simply what we have to work with now due to evolutionary reasons, but I'm thinking more about the long term. With regard to backward compatibility, there's no reason that inline JavaScript could not be simultaneously supported for a period of time and of course JavaScript could be one of the languages supported by the browser virtual machine.
Well, yes. Certainly if we had a time machine, going back and ensuring a lot of the Javascript features were designed differently would be a major pastime (that, and ensuring the people who designed IE's CSS engine never went into IT). But it's not going to happen, and we're stuck with it now.
I suspect, in time, it will become the "Machine language" for the web, with other better designed languages and APIs compile down to it (and cater for different runtime engine foibles).
I don't think, however, any of these "better designed languages" will be Java, Python or Ruby. Javascript is, despite the ability to be used elsewhere, a Web application scripting language. Given that use case, we can do better than any of those languages.
I think JavaScript is a good language, but I would love to have a choice when developing client-side web applications. For legacy reasons we're stuck with JavaScript, but there are projects and ideas looking for changing that scenario:
Google Native Client: technology for running native code in the browser.
Emscripten: LLVM bytecode compiler to javascript. Allows LLVM languages to run in the browser.
Idea: .NET CLI in the browser, by the creator of Mono: http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2010/May-03.html
I think we will have JavaScript for a long time, but that will change sooner or later. There are so many developers willing to use other languages in the browser.
Answering the question - No, it would not make sense.
Currently the closest things we have to a multi-language VM are the JVM and the CLR. These aren't exactly lightweight beasts, and it would not make sense to try and embed something of this size and complexity in a browser.
Let's examine the idea that you could write a new, multilanguage VM that would be better than the existing solution.
You're behind on stability.
You're behind on complexity (way, way, behind because you're trying to generalize over multiple languages)
You're behind on adoption
So, no, it doesn't make sense.
Remember, in order to support these languages you're going to have to strip down their APIs something fierce, chopping out any parts that don't make sense in the context of a browser script. There are a huge number of design decisions to be made here, and a huge opportunity for error.
In terms of functionality, we're probably only really working with the DOM anyway, so this is really an issue of syntax and language idom, at which point it does make sense to ask, "Is this really worth it?"
Bearing in mind, the only thing we're talking about is client side scripting, because server side scripting is already available in whatever language you like. It's a relatively small programming arena and so the benefit of bringing multiple languages in is questionable.
What languages would it make sense to bring in? (Warning, subjective material follows)
Bringing in a language like C doesn't make sense because it's made for working with metal, and in a browser there isn't much metal really available.
Bringing in a language like Java doesn't make sense because the best thing about it is the APIs anyway.
Bringing in a language like Ruby or Lisp doesn't make sense because JavaScript is a powerful dynamic language very close to Scheme.
Finally, what browser maker really wants to support DOM integration for multiple languages? Each implementation will have its own specific bugs. We've already walked through fire dealing with differences between MS Javascript and Mozilla Javascript and now we want to multiply that pain five or six-fold?
It doesn't make sense.
On Windows, you can register other languages with the Scripting Host and have them available to IE. For example VBScript is supported out of the box (though it has never gained much popularity as it is for most purposes even worse than JavaScript).
The Python win32 extensions allowed one to add Python to IE like this quite easily, but it wasn't really a good idea as Python is quite difficult to sandbox: many language features expose enough implementation hooks to allow a supposedly-restricted application to break out.
It is a problem in general that the more complexity you add to a net-facing application like the browser, the greater likelihood of security problems. A bunch of new languages would certainly fit that description, and these are new languages that are also still developing fast.
JavaScript is an ugly language, but through careful use of a selective subset of features, and support from suitable object libraries, it can generally be made fairly tolerable. It seems incremental, practical additions to JavaScript are the only way web scripting is likely to move on.
I would definitely welcome a standard language independent VM in browsers (I would prefer to code in a statically typed language).
(Technically) It's quite doable gradually: first one major browser supports it and server has the possibility to either send bytecode if current request is from compatible browser or translate the code to JavaScript and send plain-text JavaScript.
There already exist some experimental languages that compile to JavaScript, but having a defined VM would (maybe) allow for better performance.
I admit that the "standard" part would be quite tricky, though. Also there would be conflicts between language features (eg. static vs. dynamic typing) concerning the library (assuming the new thing would use same library). Therefore I don't think it's gonna happen (soon).
If you feel like you are getting your hands dirty, then you have either been brainwashed, or are still feeling the after affects of the "DHTML years". JavaScript is very powerful, and is suited well for its purpose, which is to script interactivity client side. This is why JavaScript 2.0 got such a bad rap. I mean, why packages, interfaces, classes, and the like, when those are clearly aspects of server-side languages. JavaScript is just fine as a prototype-based language, without being full-blown object oriented.
If there is a lack of seamlessness to your applications because the server-side and client-side are not communicating well, then you might want to reconsider how you architect your applications. I have worked with extremely robust Web sites and Web applications, and I have never once said, "Hmm, I really wish JavaScript could do (xyz)." If it could do that, then it wouldn't be JavaScript -- it would be ActionScript or AIR or Silverlight. I don't need that, and neither do most developers. Those are nice technologies, but they try to solve a problem with a technology, not a... well, a solution.
I don't think that a standard web VM is that inconceivable. There are a number of ways you could introduce a new web VM standard gracefully and with full legacy support, as long as you ensure that any VM bytecode format you use can be quickly decompiled into javascript, and that the resulting output will be reasonably efficient (I would even go so far as to guess that a smart decompiler would probably generate better javascript than any javascript a human could produce themselves).
With this property, any web VM format could be easily decompiled either on the server (fast), on the client (slow, but possible in cases where you have limited control of the server), or could be pre-generated and loaded dynamically by either the client or the server (fastest) for browsers that don’t natively support the new standard.
Those browsers that DO natively support the new standard would benefit from increased speed of the runtime for web vm based apps. On top of that, if browsers base their legacy javascript engines on the web vm standard (i.e. parsing javascript into the web vm standard and then running it), then they don’t have to manage two runtimes, but that’s up to the browser vendor.
While Javascript is the only well-supported scripting language you can control the page directly from, Flash has some very nice features for bigger programs. Lately it has a JIT and can also generate bytecode on the fly (check out runtime expression evaluation for an example where they use flash to compile user-input math expressions all the way to native binary). The Haxe language gives you static typing with inference and with the bytecode generation abilities you could implement almost any runtime system of your choice.
Quick update on this old question.
Everyone who affirmed that a "web page would contain byte code instead of any higher-level language like JavaScript" "won't happen".
June 2015 the W3C announced WebAssembly that is
a new portable, size- and load-time-efficient format suitable for
compilation to the web.
This is still experimental, but there is already some prototypal implementation in Firefox nightly and Chrome Canary and there is already some demonstration working.
Currently, WebAssembly is mostly designed to be produced from C/C++, however
as WebAssembly evolves it will support more languages than C/C++, and we hope that other compilers will support it as well.
I let you have a closer look at the official page of the project, it is truly exciting!
this question resurfaces regularly. my stance on this is:
A) wont happen and B) is already here.
pardon, what? let me explain:
ad A
a VM is not just some sort of universal magical device. most VMs are optimized for a certain language and certain language features. take the JRE/Java (or LLVM): optimized for static typing, and there are definitely problems and downsides when implementing dynamic typing or other things java didn't support in the first place.
so, the "general multipurpose VM" that supports lots of language features (tail call optimization, static & dynamic typing, foo bar boo, ...) would be colossal, hard to implement and probably harder to optimize to get good performance out of it. but i'm no language designer or vm guru, maybe i'm wrong: it's actually pretty easy, only nobody had the idea yet? hrm, hrm.
ad B
already here: there may not be a bytecode compiler/vm, but you don't actually need one. afaik javascript is turing complete, so it should be possible to either:
create a translator from language X to javascript (e.g. coffeescript)
create a interpreter in javascript that interprets language X (e.g. brainfuck). yes, performance would be abysmal, but hey, can't have everything.
ad C
what? there wasn't a point C in the first place!? because there isn't ... yet. google NACL. if anyone can do it, it's google. as soon google gets it working, your problems are solved. only, uh, it may never work, i don't know. the last time i read about it there were some unsolved security problems of the really tricky kind.
apart from that:
javascript's been there since ~1995 = 15 years. still, browser implementations differ today (although at least it's not insufferable anymore). so, if you start something new yet, you might have a version working cross browser around 2035. at least a working subset. that only differs subtly. and needs compatibility libs and layers. no point in not trying to improve things though.
also, what about readable source code? i know a lot of companies would prefer not to serve their code as "kind-of" open source. personally, i'm pretty happy i'm able to read the source if i suspect something fishy or want to learn from it. hooray for source code!
Indeed. Silverlight is effectively just that - a client side .Net based VM.
There are some errors in your reasoning.
A standard virtual machine in a standard browser will never be standard. We have 4 browsers, and IE has conflicting interests with regard to 'standard'. The three others are evolving fast but adoption rate of new technologies is slow. What about browsers on phones, small devices, ...
The integration of JS in the different browsers and its past history leads you to under-estimating the power of JS. You pledge a standard, but disapprove JS because standard didn't work out in the early years.
As told by others, JS is not the same as AIR/.NET/... and the like. JS in its current incarnation perfectly fits its goals.
In the long term, Perl and Ruby could well replace javascript. Yet the adoption of those languages is slow and it is known that they will never take over JS.
How do you define best? Best for the browser, or best for the developer? (Plus ECMAScript is different than Javascript, but that is a technicality.)
I find that JavaScript can be powerful and elegant at the same time. Unfortunately most developers I have met treat it like a necessary evil instead of a real programming language.
Some of the features I enjoy are:
treating functions as first class citizens
being able to add and remove functions to any object at any time (not useful much but mind blowing when it is)
it is a dynamic language.
It's fun to deal with and it is established. Enjoy it while it is around because while it may not be the "best" for client scripting it is certainly pleasant.
I do agree it is frustrating when making dynamic pages because of browser incompatibilities, but that can be mitigated by UI libraries. That should not be held against JavaScript itself anymore than Swing should be held against Java.
JavaScript is the browser's standard virtual machine. For instance, OCaml and Haskell now both have compilers that can output JavaScript. The limitation is not JavaScript the language, the limitation is the browser objects accessible via JavaScript, and the access control model used to ensure you can safely run JavaScript without compromising your machine. The current access controls are so poor, that JavaScript is only allowed very limited access to browser objects for safety reasons. The Harmony project is looking to fix that.
It's a cool idea. Why not take it a step further?
Write the HTML parser and layout engine (all the complicated bits in the browser, really) in the same VM language
Publish the engine to the web
Serve the page with a declaration of which layout engine to use, and its URL
Then we can add features to browsers without having to push new browsers out to every client - the relevant new bits would be loaded dynamically from the web. We could also publish new versions of HTML without all the ridiculous complexity of maintaining backwards compatibility with everything that's ever worked in a browser - compatibility is the responsibility of the page author. We also get to experiment with markup languages other than HTML. And, of course, we can write fancy JIT compilers into the engines, so that you can script your webpages in any language you want.
I would welcome any language besides javascript as possible scripting language.
What would be cool is to use other languages then Javascript. Java would probably not be a great fit between the tag but languages like Haskell, Clojure, Scala, Ruby, Groovy would be beneficial.
I came a cross Rubyscript somewhile ago ...
http://almaer.com/blog/running-ruby-in-the-browser-via-script-typetextruby and http://code.google.com/p/ruby-in-browser/
Still experimental and in progress, but looks promising.
For .Net I just found: http://www.silverlight.net/learn/dynamic-languages/ Just found the site out, but looks interesting too. Works even from my Apple Mac.
Don't know how good the above work in providing an alternative for Javascript, but it looks pretty cool at first glance. Potentially, this would allow one to use any Java or .Net framework natively from the browser - within the browser's sandbox.
As for safety, if the language runs inside the JVM (or .Net engine for that matter), the VM will take care of security so we don't have to worry about that - at least not more then we should for anything that runs inside the browser.
Probably, but to do so we'd need to get the major browsers to support them. IE support would be the hardest to get. JavaScript is used because it is the only thing you can count on being available.
The vast majority of the devs I've spoken to about ECMAScript et. al. end up admitting that the problem isn't the scripting language, it's the ridiculous HTML DOM that it exposes. Conflating the DOM and the scripting language is a common source of pain and frustration regarding ECMAScript. Also, don't forget, IIS can use JScript for server-side scripting, and things like Rhino allow you to build free-standing apps in ECMAScript. Try working in one of these environments with ECMAScript for a while, and see if your opinion changes.
This kind of despair has been going around for some time. I'd suggest you edit this to include, or repost with, specific issues. You may be pleasantly surprised by some of the relief you get.
A old site, but still a great place to start: Douglas Crockford's site.
Well, we have already VBScript, don't we? Wait, only IE supports it!
Same for your nice idea of VM. What if I script my page using Lua, and your browser doesn't have the parser to convert it to bytecode? Of course, we could imagine a script tag accepting a file of bytecode, that even would be quite efficient.
But experience shows it is hard to bring something new to the Web: it would take years to adopt a radical new change like this. How many browsers support SVG or CSS3?
Beside, I don't see what you find "dirty" in JS. It can be ugly if coded by amateurs, propagating bad practice copied elsewhere, but masters shown it can be an elegant language too. A bit like Perl: often looks like an obfuscated language, but can be made perfectly readable.
Check this out http://www.visitmix.com/Labs/Gestalt/ - lets you use python or ruby, as long as the user has silverlight installed.
This is a very good question.
It's not the problem only in JS, as it is in the lack of good free IDEs for developing larger programs in JS. I know only one that is free: Eclipse. The other good one is Microsoft's Visual Studio, but not free.
Why would it be free? If web browser vendors want to replace desktop apps with online apps (and they want) then they have to give us, the programmers, good dev tools. You can't make 50,000 lines of JavaScript using a simple text editor, JSLint and built-in Google Chrome debugger. Unless you're a macohist.
When Borland made an IDE for Turbo Pascal 4.0 in 1987, it was a revolution in programming. 24 years have passed since. Shamefully, in the year 2011 many programmers still don't use code completion, syntax checking and proper debuggers. Probably because there are so few good IDEs.
It's in the interest of web browser vendors to make proper (FREE) tools for programmers if they want us to build applications with which they can fight Windows, Linux, MacOS, iOS, Symbian, etc.
Realistically, Javascript is the only language that any browsers will use for a long time, so while it would be very nice to use other languages, I can't see it happening.
This "standardised VM" you talk of would be very large and would need to be adopted by all major browsers, and most sites would just continue using Javascript anyway since it's more suited to websites than many other browsers.
You would have to sandbox each programming language in this VM and reduce the amount of access each language has to the system, requiring a lot of changes in the languages and removal or reimplementation of many features. Whereas Javascript already has this in mind, and has done a for a long time.
Maybe you're looking for Google's Native Client.
In a sense, having a more expressive language like Javascript in the browser instead of something more general like Java bytecode has meant a more open web.
I think this is not so easy issue. We can say that we're stuck with JS, but is it really so bad with jQuery, Prototype, scriptaculous, MooTools, and all fantastic libraries?
Remember, JS is lightweight, even more so with V8, TraceMonkey, SquirrelFish - new Javascript engines used in modern browsers.
It is also proved - yeah, we know it has problems, but we have lots of these sorted out, like early security problems. Imaging allowing your browser to run Ruby code, or anything else. Security sandbox would have to be done for scratch. And you know what? Python folks already failed two times at it.
I think Javascript is going to be revised and improved over time, just like HTML and CSS is. The process may be long, but not everything is possible in this world.
I don't think you "understand the pragmatic issue that JavaScript is simply what we have to work with now". Actually it is very powerful language. You had your Java applet in browser for years, and where is it now?
Anyhow, you don't need to "get dirty" to work on client. For example, try GWT.
... you mean...
Java and Java applet
Flash and Adobe AIR
etc..
In general, any RIA framework can fill your needs; but for every one there's a price to pay for using it ( ej. runtime avalible on browser or/and propietary or/and less options than pure desktop )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rich_internet_application_frameworks
For developing Web with any non-web languaje, you've GWT: develop Java, compile to Javascript
Because they all have VMs with bytecode interpreters already, and the bytecode is all different too. {Chakra(IE), Firefox (SpiderMonkey), Safari (SquirrelFish), Opera(Carakan).
Sorry , I think Chrome (V8) compiles down to IA32 machine code.
well, considering all browsers already use a VM, I don't think it will be that difficult to make a VM language for the web.
I think it would greatly help for a few reasons:
1. since the server compiles the code, the amount of data sent is smaller and the client doesn't waist time on compiling the code.
2. since the server can compile the code in preparation and store it, unlike the client which tries to waist as little time quickly compiling the JS, it can make better code optimizations.
3. compiling a language to byte code is way easier then transpiling to JS.
as a final note (as someone already said in another comment), HTML and CSS compile down to a simpler language, not sure if it counts as byte code, but you could also send compiled html and css from the server to the client which would reduce parse and fetch times
IMO, JavaScript, the language, is not the problem. JavaScript is actually quite an expressive and powerful language. I think it gets a bad rep because it's not got classical OO features, but for me the more I go with the prototypal groove, the more I like it.
The problem as I see it is the flaky and inconsistent implementations across the many browsers we are forced to support on the web. JavaScript libraries like jQuery go a long way towards mitigating that dirty feeling.