Am I correct that if someone wrote a Ruby plugin for a web browser and a user installed that plugin then it would be possible to replace javascript with ruby on the frontend?
Aren't there any plugins for this? Or even for using other languages than javascript on the browser side?
You could use http://ironruby.net/ in a Silverlight Plugin, but I have not a clue about how easy DOM interaction is this way.
But I BEG YOU don't do it! Please, use the Open Web Stack to solve your problems.
If you don't leave your Ruby world of comfort, you will not only hurt your users experience "WTF? Why do I need Silverlight for this page?" but you will also get stuck in your small little Ruby world without learning anything new and exciting.
It would be better for both of you, if you'd just go ahead and learn JavaScript.
Because remember: "Learning is a good thing!"
One thing is A FACT: as of 2010 JavaScript does not have a thread stopping "sleep" function (other than the one that just burns CPU cycles).
I have been working with JavaScript for at least a year before posting this comment and I have come to a conclusion that the lack of a thread-stopping sleep function is a real show-stopper for threading related code.
A consequence of the lack of the sleep function is that it's not possible to simulate a Ruby/C#/C++/etc. like threading model in JavaScript, which in turn means that it's not possible to translate any of the threading enabled languages to JavaScript, no matter, what one does, unless the JavaScript is supplemented with a (preferably non-CPU-cycle-burning) sleep function.
If one surfs around, then one can find many comments that state that the sleep function is not even necessary, that the setTimeout is sufficient, etc., but I guess that people, who state that, have not tried to implement a threading framework in JavaScript. (Think of mutexes, critical sections. I refuse to go into a discussion that the critical sections/synchronization are/is not necessary for cases, where widget content consists of multiple data components that form an "atomic whole".)
The second show-stopper for the whole DOM-model is the implementation that renders DOM elements IN THE BACKGROUND THREAD.
Here's, what happens:
In Javascript:
create_my_awsome_widget_in_DOM();
edit_my_awsome_widget_by_editing_DOM_inside_it()
if_we_are_lucky_we_reach_here_without_crashing_the_app()
As the DOM is rendered in background (read: in a separate thread), there will be a race condition between the thread that initiated the DOM editing, by making a call to the create_my_awsome_widget_in_DOM(), and the DOM rendering. If the rendering thread is "quick enough" to render the DOM before the JavasSript thread calls the edit_my_awsome_widget_by_editing_DOM_inside_it(), everything works fine, but if it's the other way around, then the JavaScript starts to modify region of the DOM that does not (yet) exist.
Essentially it means that due to the background DOM rendering the create_my_awsome_widget_in_DOM() and edit_my_awsome_widget_by_editing_DOM_inside_it() are executed in a random order and obviously the application crashes, if the edit_my_awsome_widget_by_editing_DOM_inside_it() is called before the create_my_awsome_widget_in_DOM().
There might be a way to do it indirectly. Here is the original presentation at RubyConf 2008. The topic:
This talk is about the many paths towards getting ruby running in your web browser. I'll first talk about why this is even a good idea. I'll then talk briefly about each approach I've investigated and the differing amounts of FAIL I encountered with each. Next I'll focus on the most promising contender, rubyjs, a ruby compiler which outputs javascript.
The project rubyjs still exists, but it appears to be dead. The idea probably was a little too crazy.
mruby seems like an interesting option for running ruby in a web browser:
http://qiezi.me/projects/mruby-web-irb/mruby.html
It's not a typical plugin as it does not require installation, it's javascript (compiled from C) running ruby code.
Technically that would be correct, assuming the browser/plugin also provided an extensive API to deal with the DOM and such. I am not aware of any plugins that make this possible, but it's an interesting idea.
Related
As far as I know, Aurelia does not support server-side rendering as mentioned here.
But the question is: is it possible to do this with some hacks/workarounds?
The most obvious idea would be to use Phantom, Nightmare.js or whatever to simply render that page in Chrome on server and serve that to client, but this is very likely to cause big productivity issues.
Thanks!
UPD
According to Rob Eisenberg's response on FDConf today (16 Apr 2016), server-side rendering will be implemented in 2016, there's one core team member working on that and there's a deadline for this feature.
There is an open issue for Universal/Isomorphic Aurelia which you can monitor. In particular EisenbergEffect (who is Rob Eisenberg, the creator of Aurelia) states that they are gradually working towards providing Universal support for Aurelia. This post from him provides most of the detail:
EisenbergEffect commented on Aug 25
We are trying to lock things down within the next month. That doesn't
mean we won't add anything after that, but we need to work towards
stabilization, performance and solid documentation without
distractions of lots of new features for a little bit.
Primarily, "isomorphism" isn't a use case we want to tackle for the
initial v1 release. Again, that doesn't mean we won't do it later.
But, we want to have a solid framework for browser-based apps as well
as phone gap and electron/nwjs desktop apps first. That was our
original goal and we want to make sure we handle those scenarios
better than any other framework or library.
After that, we've got some other features we want to do, which are
valuable in their own right, but will also take us closer to
isomorphism.
Enable all aurelia libraries to run on the server. This enables some
new testing scenarios, so it's valuable if only from that perspective.
Once code can run on the server, we can then implement server view
compilation. This isn't isomorphic rendering, but rather the ability
to run Aurelia's view compiler as part of your build and bundle
process. This enables more work to be done ahead of time, as part of
your build, and then it doesn't need to be done in the browser at
runtime. So, this will improve the startup time for all apps and
reduce initial render times for all components. It also will make it
possible to store compiled views in browser local cache to improve
performance of successive runs of the application.
After both of those
things are in place, then we can look at doing a full server render
for each route. This isn't quite isomorphic in the truest sense, but
it solves the SEO problem without needing 3rd party libraries. So,
it's nice to have a solution there.
Finally, we can then "sync" a
server pre-rendered app with a stateful Aurelia app running in
browser, giving us 100% isomorphic support. So, those are the stages.
The first two would be beneficial to all developers, even those who
are not interested in isomorphic apps. The 3rd stage can be done today
with 3rd party libraries, so this is a nice to have for us, for those
who don't want an extra dependency. All of that leads into 4 which
adds the final pieces.
We have already begun some of the work on 1. That might get into our
first release. We aren't going to push it, but it's already in
progress and we're looking for the problem areas so we can make it
work. Steps 2-4 involve significant work. Really, we are talking about
a collection of features here, each one being rather complex. So,
those will probably come in stages after v1, as point releases.
We really don't want to do what Angular 2 has done. They have
massively complicated their architecture...to the point that very few
people will be able to understand it and developing applications with
it has become much more complicated, with many nuances. We really
don't want that, so we're focusing on the developer experience we want
first, then we'll come back and see about isomorphic support (yes, we
already have ideas how to do this cleanly, but want to give those
ideas some time to mature). In all of this, our goal is to be modular.
So, if you don't care about isomorphism, you don't have to think or
worry about it. If you do, you would install the necessary packages,
agree to the "constraints" of the system and be on your way.
So, to all who are interested in this topic, I would just ask you
kindly to be patient. For those who aren't interested in isomorphism,
don't worry, we aren't going to brake the developer experience on you.
For those of you who want it badly, you will have to wait longer and
it will come in stages and in modular pieces so as not to disrupt
others.
Just for now
The only way I can propose: render pages with phantomjs + use redis to speedup that process.
But you will have lots of trouble restoring the state at client side.
.......
Dirty solution
Load rendered page from server and at the client side render new one in the usual way, than switch UI's.
It won't be a truly isomorphic, but something like https://github.com/rails/turbolinks on first page load.
.....
I hope soon Aurelia team will provide simpler stuff for that case.
In the current Aurelia there is the possibility to enhance existing html.
The document says
So far you've seen Aurelia replacing a portion of the DOM with a root component. However, that's not the only way to render with Aurelia. Aurelia can also progressively enhance existing HTML.
Check out enhancement section # http://aurelia.io/docs.html#/aurelia/framework/1.0.0-beta.1.0.8/doc/article/app-configuration-and-startup
I'm looking forward to get a better documentation of this feature.
It seems to me like rendering the html on the Server and inject aurelia will work with it and google will like it as well.
a hack i just came up with is to put a static copy of the initial rendering into the index.html file:
<html>
<body aurelia-app="main">
<h1>static copy of the website here</h1>
<script src="scripts/vendor-bundle.js" data-main="aurelia-bootstrapper"></script>
</body>
</html>
this is of course completely manual and if the initial rendering contains any content from a database then the static copy may need to be updated
every time the database content changes. (which is of course what isomorphic rendering is supposed to solve)
however for my needs, which is a simple website with some information that is rarely updated, this solution is good enough. it will at least suffice until i am able to implement proper isomorphic rendering.
I am building a massive real-time collaboration web application. It is a Web IDE that has support for HTML, CSS & JS programming and a stage area that would reflect the results a la JSFiddle, Plunker etc.
Now, the twist is that, it would support multi-user real-time collaboration, where people viewing the same instance of the web application would be able to write code together that would reflect across all the open instances. I have figured out the race conditions, session management et al
What I am having trouble with is
how to reflect the typing and/or deleting along with caret positioning
across these multiple instances giving the illusion that when one
person is typing, he is actually typing on all the instances.
The other thing is that RactiveJS says that it
updates only those parts of the page that are out of date. Tedious DOM
manipulation is a thing of the past.
Which is a very nice effect in their Demo. Imagine, you are on JSFiddle and you don't have to re-run every time. So, my question is, how do they do it? What is the concept behind it?
I don't want to use any library for this. I am pretty good in JS. I am having a hard time figuring out the algorithm.
Things I have considered:
Dirty Checking [but, its dirty right?]
Delta Differencing [but like ReactJS, it would have to update the entire application state every time]
Object.observe [the browser compatibility is not realistic yet]
So, if you have anything that can help me go in the right direction, I would be really thankful.
Realtime-collaboration tools, that allow concurrent editing/manipulation of objects/texts etc, usually use a variant of the Operational Transformation algorithm.
OT is not trivial to understand, much rather implement so I'd suggest you take a look at already-cooked libs for this such as:
ShareJS
Racer for Node
OT works, in some very basic way, similar to GIT
As an update to what you posted in the comments.
You say you are using Python. You wouldn't rebuild your whole codebase, I guess, but keep in mind that real-time collaboration tools usually benefit a lot from using an event-driven server-side language.
Since you are using Python, you could check out the Twisted Framework
Is Graceful degradation possible for everything? for every javascript and javascript frameworks functionality?
No, it is not possible for everything. There comes a point when you have to decide if you can support a feature with or without javascript, or if it simply can't be done without it (or would take too much time/money to accomplish).
This concept might help you:
For public websites meant to provide information, make sure every essential piece works with/without JS. This includes sales sites, corporate information sites, business micro sites, etc.
If the site is a web application with tools available behind a login, then making JS a requirement makes more sense since you can notify the user of this requirement upon signup/signin. Obviously you should still go as far as you can to make the site accessible for handicapped users.
If you start with a non-javascript webpage, and get the functionality that you are willing to accept, then you can get graceful degradation to work, as you have a lower level that is acceptable, so if you can't get some functionality to work you can just not use javascript for that part.
But, if you absolutely require javascript then you need to decide on a least supported version, and get your app to work that way.
You may find that you will need to be able to replace some functionality that doesn't exist in the browser's version of javascript, so, if you use the string.trim() function but it isn't included, then you need to write it, and use the String.prototype functionality.
If you use unobtrusive javascript then you can test before making any changes to the dom elements to see what needs to be done to get that functionality to work.
If you find a framework that doesn't meet your needs, you will need to replace that framework with your own, rather than having a mix where on some browsers you have one framework and on others you have your own.
It depends what you will accept as functional, if you require a dialog box to pop up on the page and request user input, then no, but if it's ok that the page redirects to an input form then it is.
There are a lot of cool things that can be done with javascript, but with some thought things can usually be functional (but probably not pretty) without.
In my experience, I've yet to find a scenario that can't be solved with graceful degradation. Consider a "to-do list" app of today versus a decade ago. Today, if you would like to order a list of items, you simply drag & drop. A decade ago, you would click a "re-order" button, visit a second page where you would manually modify the IDs for each item for numeric sorting.
I tend to build apps (with a framework behind them, mind you) that already support this structure. Then, with "progressive enhancement" via Javascript, you can simply ease the user's burden in making these changes and still take advantage of the same code in the backend.
So yes, as long as a browser supports cookies for session data, an app can remain entirely functional without Javascript. It will simply be more difficult to use :)
Many years back, I was told that Javascript was harmful, and I remember being annoyed with endless popup when I right-clicked an image to download it.
Now it seems suddenly that Javascript is great, and you can do a lot of things with it to let users have native-like web application experience.
I admit I have missed 6-7 years of Javascript literature, so I hope to start anew with SO kickstarting me to understand the following:
Is Javascript mainly concerned about user interface i.e. smoothen interaction between application and users and not about logic processing, number crunching or form processing etc.?
Can Javascript write to local hard drive (besides cookies)?
Can Javascript web application run with Javascript capabilities in browsers turned off? (I would think outright no, but an article on Adaptive Path said 'maybe')
Is AJAX illegal to use due to Eolas patent claim? Is it worth it spending effort learning it when the future is not secure? (I know AJAX is not Javascript)
Thanks. Hoping for enlightenment.
Yes. JavaSscript is usually used to enhance the user's experience and make the site easier to use. It is also possible to delegate validation tasks and the like to JavaScript, however (though this should never absolve the server of its responsibility to check input).
No.
That depends on how the application is written. If it's done properly, then the JavaScript will merely enhance the interface, and the application will still work without it; this is called progressive enhancement.
Not at all. AJAX is used extensively on this very site!
One reason for the resurgence of popularity for JavaScript lately is the emergence of several frameworks. These make the process of writing JavaScript much, much easier, allowing tasks that would previously have been horribly complex to be implemented with minimal time and effort. The most popular of these is jQuery, which is a good place to start if you're intending to get in on the action.
Overall, JavaScript is a very powerful tool that allows you to create very rich interfaces. Well worth learning.
Yes, Javascript is all about client side processing, but also about AJAX where it calls back to the server asynchronously so that users do not see pages reloading.
No
No, but there are ways to gracefully degrade the experience for non javascript users. It requires carefult planning however.
No, that lawsuit was just about the browser technology that enables it. As a developer you dont have to worry about that.
Can Javascript write to local hard drive (besides cookies)?
Not really. However, as HTML5 support becomes more widespread you'll be able to use things like Web Storage and Web SQL. You won't be able to write arbitrary files on the user's hard drive, but using those two technologies you'll be able to persistently store and access data.
Can Javascript web application run
with Javascript capabilities in
browsers turned off? (I would think
outright no, but an article on
Adaptive Path said 'maybe')
It really depends on how you define "web application." You can write web apps without using Javascript for anything but UI candy, in which case you can degrade gracefully without without it. However, it's also possible to write web apps that rely heavily (entirely, even) on Javascript, which will utterly fail without it.
Is AJAX illegal to use due to Eolas
patent claim? Is it worth it spending
effort learning it when the future is
not secure?
I'm not a lawyer, but I'd agree with the other answers -- you shouldn't worry about it. I'm certainly still writing AJAX stuff :)
Is Javascript mainly concerned about
user interface i.e. smoothen
interaction between application and
users and not about logic processing,
number crunching or form processing
etc.?
It's about both. And more than that.
Javascript has really come into its own in the past few years. Browsers have gotten a lot faster at executing it quickly, and people have been figuring out new ways to use the language itself to its full potential. You can really start using Javascript like a full-out application programming language, and not just to write little scripts that animate something or validate input.
If you're just getting back into the language and haven't read Crockford yet, I would highly recommend it. It's a great starting point to realizing the full potential of Javascript.
Edit: Some good Crockford Links
Javascript: The World's Most Misunderstood Programming Language
Javascript: The Good Parts (This is a presentation. Crockford also wrote a book by the same name that I haven't read myself, but I hear it's quite excellent.)
It's mainly for UI, but it can be used to save server-time on some operations (for example, Mathoverflow uses it to render LaTeX) and it's becoming popular to do so. But when you do this, you need to be respectful of the end-users time, because JavaScript can hold up some browsers, while it runs. But in general, it's a good and interesting idea.
Not without permission
If it's written correctly, it can. It's called "Graceful degredation" (some other variant terms exist, but the idea is the same). The basic idea is that you have it such that the JavaScript fails 'gracefully', and links that would normally get handled via JavaScript (i.e. to do some inline next-paging) will navigate to a 'backup' page that shows the relevant content.
I don't know about that, but AJAX can be implemented in different ways, XMLHTTPRequest is just one of them :) (And the most common, and suitable). Generally you like a library do this for you anyway (jQuery, or otherwise) but you can do it yourself for fun.
Yes, in my experience JavaScript is generally used to create a streamlined interface and relays information from the client to a server application for processing.
Yes, if the browser is configured to allow this (most aren't by default since this can be very dangerous).
No, JavaScript will not run if the browser is configured to have JavaScript disabled.
I wouldn't forgo learning JavaScript for this reason - as for the legality of the whole thing I wouldn't feel comfortable advising you about this. Still I think JavaScript is worth learning in spite of this situation.
The Eolas patent covers the embedding of objects in a HTML document (see US patent 5,838,906 titled "Distributed hypermedia method for automatically invoking external application providing interaction and display of embedded objects within a hypermedia document") ... this scope would not seem to include AJAX as a suite of technologies (being essentially scripting in a document to load content elements).
Partial answers:
I think all the security vulnerabilities associated with javascript have been fixed? IIRC the problems weren't with javascript, they were with particular browser's implementation of javascript.
I wouldn't worry about any patent claims on the AJAX technology. Patent sueing and counter-sueing is common place in the software world and invariably ends up with the affected parties licencing each other's technology. AJAX is not going anywhere :)
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 10 years ago.
Does anyone see server-side JavaScript taking off? There are a couple of implementations out there, but it all seems to be a bit of a stretch (as in, "doing it BECAUSE WE CAN" type of attitude).
I'm curious to know if anyone actually writes JavaScript for the server-side and what their experiences with it have been to date.
Also, which implementation is generally seen as the most stable?
I like to read Googler Steve Yegge's blog, and recently I came across this article of his where he argues that Mozilla Rhino is a good solution for server-side JS. It's a somewhat sloppy transcript, you might prefer to watch the video of the talk. It also offers a little bit of insight on why he thinks server-side JS is a good idea in the first place (or rather, why he thinks that it's a good idea to use a dynamic language to script Java). I thought the points he makes were convincing, so you might want to check it out.
A while earlier, he also posted something about dynamic languages in general (he's a big fan of them), just in case you were wondering why to use JS at all.
Why would you want to process
something in Javascript when you can
process it in PHP or ASP.NET which are
designed specifically for this task?
Perhaps because JavaScript is a more powerful programming language than those two? For example, it has functions as first-class data types and support for closures.
Steve Yegge has blogged about porting Ruby on Rails to server-side JavaScript as an internal project within Google ("Rhino on Rails"). He did it because he likes Rails but using Ruby isn't allowed within Google.
Before it was acquired by Google, JotSpot used server-side JavaScript to let you query their database and display your pages. They used Rhino to do it. CouchDB uses server-side JavaScript to create views of their database.
As you can see from these examples, a great way to use JavaScript on the server is for plugins. One of the reasons it's used is that you can create a very isolated sandbox for people to run their code in. Also, because of the way that JavaScript as a language works, you can provide a user tooling specifically honed to the tasks your users need to complete. If you do this right, users don't need to learn a new language to complete their tasks, a quick glance at your API and examples is enough to get them on their way. Compare this to many of the other languages and you can see why using server-side JavaScript to provide a plugin architecture is so enticing.
A secondary popular solution, one which can be seen through a project like Jaxer, is that a common problem of web applications that do client-side validation is that, since JavaScript is easily bypassed in the browser, validation has to be run once again on the server. A system like Jaxer allows you to write some validation functionality that is reusable between both server and client.
Support for JS on the server has been getting stronger and the number of frameworks is getting bigger even faster.
Just recently the serversideJS group was founded. They have a lot of smart people that have been working on serverside JS for years (some of them more then 10).
The goal for this project is to create
a standard library that will
ultimately allow web developers to
choose among any number of web
frameworks and tools and run that code
on the platform that makes the most
sense for their application.
to the people who say "why would you choose JS over java or any other language?" - you should read this Re-Introduction by Crockford and forget about the DOM - the DOM is superugly, but that's not JS fault and JS is not the DOM.
I've never even heard of this, but it strikes me as using the wrong tool for the job. Since programming languages are just tools designed to help us solve some problem.
Why would you want to process something in Javascript when you can process it in PHP or ASP.NET which are designed specifically for this task?
Sure you can pound a nail in with a screw driver, but a hammer works much better because it was actually designed for it...
So no, I don't see it taking off.
Well, plain ol' ASP supported JavaScript server-side years ago and everyone onad their dog used VBShiate instead. But I have to agree with the others: JS does not seem to be the right tool here - and I love to do client-side JS :)
I personally did a whole site in server side JavaScript using ASP. I found it quite enjoyable because I was able to have some good code reuse. This included:
validation of parameters
object modeling
object transport
Coupled with a higher-level modeling tool and code gen, I had fun with that project.
I have no numbers on perf unfortunately, since it is used only on an intranet. However, I have to assume performance is on par with VBScript backed ASP sites.
It seems like most of you are put off by this idea because of how unpleasant the various client-side implementations of Javascript have been. I would check out existing solutions before passing judgment, though, because remember that no particular SS/JS solution is tied to the JS implementations currently being used in browsers. Javascript is based on ECMAScript, remember, a spec that is currently in a fairly mature state. I suspect that a SS/JS solution that supports more recent ECMA specs would be no more cumbersome than using other scripting languages for the task. Remember, Ruby wasn't written to be a "web language" originally, either.
Does anyone see Server-side Javascript
taking off?
Try looking at http://www.appjet.com a startup doing hosted JavaScript applications to get a feel for what you can do. I especially like the learning process which gently nudges the user to build things with a minimal overhead ~ http://appjet.com/learn-to-program/lessons/intro
Now it might seem a weird idea at the moment to use JavaScript but think back when PC's started coming out. Every nerd I knew of was typing away at their new Trash-80's, Commodore64's, Apple ]['s typing in games or simple apps in BASIC.
Where is todays basic for the younger hacker?
It is just possible that JavaScript could do for Web based server side apps as BASIC did for the PC.
XChat can run Javascript plugins.
I've some accounting software completely written in Javascript.
There's this interesting IO library for V8: http://tinyclouds.org/node/
CouchDB is a document database with 'queries' written in Javascript (TraceMonkey).
Considering this, i believe, server-side Javascript did take off.
Server-side programming has been around for a lot longer than client side, and has lots of good solutions already.
JavaScript has survived and become popular purely because developers have very little choice in the matter - it's the only language that can interact with a DOM. Its only competition on the client side is from things like Flash and Silverlight which have a very different model.
This is also why JavaScript has received so much effort to smart it up and add modern features. If it were possible for the whole browser market to drop JavaScript and replace it with something designed properly for the task, I'm sure they would. As it stands Javascript has strange prototype-based objects, a few neat functional programming features, limited and quirky collections and very few libraries.
For small scripts it's fine, but it's a horrible language for writing large complicated systems. That things like Firefox and Gmail are (partly) written in it is a heroic accomplishment on their part, not a sign that the language is ready for real application development.
Flash Media Server is scripted by using Server Side Action Script, which is really just javascript (ECMAScript). So, I do it a lot. In fact, most of my day was dealing with SSAS.
And I hate it. Though to be fair, a bunch of that is more related to the (not so great) codebase I inherited than the actual language.
I think server-side Javascript is guarenteed to take off. Its only a matter of time.
Mozilla, Google, and Adobe have so much vested interest for Javascript that it would take a miracle to dislodge it from the browser world. The next logical step is to move this into the server-side.
This is a step towards moving away from the hodge podge of Internet technology that usually includes all of these
HTML
CSS
Javascript
Serverside Language J2EE/ASP/Ruby/Python/PHP
SQL
I haven't heard much about the current state of Javascript Server frameworks, except that they are mostly incomplete.
I see server-side js will offer considerable advantages in future applications. Why? Web apps that can go offline, client-side db store, google gears, etc...
Following this trend, more and more logic are moving into the client-side. Use an ORM that works for client-side, and use another on server-side (be it PHP / Ruby / whatever), write your synchronization logic twice in two different languages, write your business logic twice in two different languages?
How about use js on the client AND the server side and write the code once?
Convincing?
Personaly i've been developing and using my own JavaScript framework for about 4 years
now.
The good thing about JS on serverside is that implemented in ASP Classic you don't need
any other plugin or software installed, besides i'm also using my javascript (client)
framework on my server, that allows me to enjoy of the same functionality and proven
performance of my functions at both environments client and serverside.
Not only for data validation, but also lets say HTML or CSS dynamic constructions
can be done client or serverside, at least with my framework.
So far it works fast, i have nothing to complain or regret except its great usability
and scalability that i have been enjoying during this past 4 years, until the point
that i'm changing my ASP Classic code to javascript code.
You can see it in pratice at http://www.laferia.com.do
Node.js has taken off and proven that server-side JavaScript is here to stay =)
I can't see most developers getting over their distaste for client-side JavaScript programming. I'd rather go to Java for server-side stuff before choosing JavaScript.