Develop Reference

What are some advantages to using a Javascript-based server over a non-Javascript server?

Disclaimer: This question will be a bit open-ended. I also expect replies to be partly based off of developer preference.
I've been doing some research lately on Express.js (coupled via Node.js) and I'm struggling to find how I would fit either of these technologies into my current workflow for developing websites. Lately I've been working in either Wordpress or Ruby on Rails, the prior will run on Apache, the latter will run on it's own proprietary server (I assume).
Now perhaps I'm just not understanding something, but I fail to see the advantages to enlisting the support of a Javascript-based framework/server. If there are clear cut advantages to making this part of my workflow, what would they be? I haven't been able to find any ways to fit this into (per say) a Rails application or a Wordpress site. Could someone point me in the direction of some better help of implementing these technologies on top of ones I already use?
One last question, what happens if someone has Javascript disabled in their browser? How would a Javascript-based server react (if at all)?

There are two big differences:
Event loop
Node.js is a bit different from the usual Apache concept, because of the way it handles connections. Instead of having synchronous connections, Node uses an event loop to have non-blocking operations. Note that this is not unique to Javascript and there are C and Python based frameworks that also enable a similar event loop approach, however in Javascript it's probably the most natural feeling since this is how JS has worked since it was introduced.
Supposedly, this should enable you to handle more concurrent clients. However, it hasn't had as much real world exposure as the regular blocking solutions so this approach isn't as mature as most current implementations. The actual performance difference is questionable as it depends on the exact requirements for the application.
Code Sharing
This point is much less controversial than the previous difference, but in essence if you have the same language on both the client and the server, you can reuse a lot of the code, instead of having to rewrite your data structures etc in multiple languages, saving you a lot of development time. However, you have to understand that the concepts of server side JS are different from what you know on the browser, such as you don't have dynamic JS with jQuery or Prototype, but it's result and use-cases are more similar to what PHP is widely used for.

The primary advantage of having Javascript as your server-side language is that you're writing your whole system in a single language.
This has advantages in terms of:
Learning curve and mental context switching for the developer
and also in provides some possibility for sharing code between the two environments.
However, this last point is less helpful than it sounds, for a number of reasons, and this is where the disadvantages come in:
Not much code can actually be shared, because of the differences in what the two environments are actually doing. Maybe a bit of validation code, so you know that you're doing the same checks on both client and server, and maybe a few utility functions, but that's about it.
The libraries you use will be completely different between the two as well: jQuery only works on the client, and Node has libraries that are server-specific.
So as a developer, you still need to mentally context switch between environments, because the two environments are different. They may share a language, but their modes of operation are different, and what they do is different. In fact, sharing the language between the two can actually make it harder to context switch, and this can lead to errors.
Finally, it's worth bearing in mind that while Node is getting lots of attention from the developer community, it is still new and evolving quickly: if you're a business considering a it as a development platform, it's probably not quite yet stable enough to base a major project on.

Is it still bad practice to build a website that relies on javascript?

Is it still bad practice to create a website that relies on javascript?
I know it used to be, but nowadays most browsers support them... Why or why not should I worry about this?

Spending extra effort to make a site work without Javascript is becoming increasingly ridiculous when so much of the web breaks when you disable it.
For example, did you know that you can't install Google Chrome when you're using a browser without Javascript? Their "accept and install" button requires Javascript.
You should, of course, use the <noscript> tag to display appropriate messages to the user that may have accidentally disabled Javascript in their browser. Google places this text at the top of their page via the noscript tag:
You need a JavaScript-capable browser
to download this software. Click here for instructions on how to enable
JavaScript in your browser.
I admit this was a surprising case when I discovered it, because well... it's Google. And millions of people have downloaded Chrome. But I think it illustrates the point that a site dependent on Javascript is a pretty normal thing today.

Depends on the target audience, but more importantly how you're using JavaScript.
Using it for effects that don't interfere with any actual functionality is usually fine.
If you want to target a broad audience and your website is non-functional without JavaScript, then you may want to reconsider.

No modern, interesting, web application does not use JavaScript. A content-only site might not use it, and any web site should warn the user that JavaScript is required, but it's been a long time since "no JavaScript" made any sense.

Search engines still do not evaluate JavaScript. If you want your site to be indexed, all the content needs to be accessible without JavaScript.

It's not bad practice to rely on JavaScript, but I would say it's bad practice to assume without checking that JavaScript is enabled.
At the very least your website should give the user a nice error if JavaScript is disabled. Ideally, at least the basic functionality (such as text content and images) should still work and JavaScript should enhance it: see Unobtrusive JavaScript.

You should know your target audience of course. If you know that everybody will be using a certain browser for something like an intranet application then you can probably assume that they will be using JavaScript.
If you are writing an application for the general public, then I would take extra effort to write it such that it works without JavaScript. Then use JavaScript to enhance the existing solution. It takes extra effort, but you can make an application both accessible and interesting if you try.
EDIT: Also thought I would add since I haven't seen any references to it, but building a website that relies on straight JavaScript (and not a common JavaScript library like JQuery) would be unwise. JQuery helps you address some of the browser differences that made JavaScript so problematic a few years back (not to mention doing more with less code).

The new HTML5 standard, which many browsers are already starting to support, relies pretty heavily on scripting for much of its new APIs. So no, it is not bad practice to use scripting, it is encouraged.

If you're making a website that's available on the internet and whose audience is more than just people you know, then it's absolutely not OK to build it so that it doesn't work without JavaScript. Many people and corporations choose to browse the web with JavaScript turned off, for many reasons, and you need to remember that the majority of users are not developers and do not browse the web in the same way with the same tools as you.
Use progressive enhancement: start by creating and testing all the core functions of your site with simple HTML. When that works, add JavaScript functionality.
Developing a highly interactive web application is a different matter. For that, it's not unreasonable to insist on your users using particular browsers with JavaScript enabled.

Where can I get advice on how to build completely ajax web apps?

I am building a completely ajax web app (this is the first web app I have ever created). I am not exactly sure if I am going about it the right way. Any suggestions or places where I can go to find suggestions?
Update:
I currently am using jQuery. I am working on fully learning that. I have designed a UI almost completely. I am struggling in some parts trying to balance a good UX, good design and fitting all the options I want to fit in it.
I have started with the design. I am currently struggling with whether to use absolute positioning or not and if not how do I use float etc. to do the same type of thing. I am trying to make it have a liquid layout (I hate fixed-layout pages) and am trying to figure out what I should use to make it look the same in most screen sizes.

Understand JavaScript. Know what a closure is, how JavaScript's event handling works, how JavaScript interacts with the DOM (beyond simply using jQuery), prototypal inheritance, and other things. It will help you when your code doesn't work and you need to fix it.
Maintain usability. All the AJAX magic you add is useless if users cannot figure out how to use it. Keep things simple, don't overload the user by giving him information he doesn't need to know (hide less important information, allowing the user to click a link to show it), and if possible, test your app with actual users to make sure that the interface is intuitive to them.
Code securely. Do not allow your server to get hacked. There are many different types of security flaws in web apps, including cross-site scripting (XSS), cross-site request forgery (CSRF), and SQL injection. You need to be well aware of these and other pitfalls and how to avoid them.

One starting point is to look at the Javascript Libraries and decide which one to use:
http://code.google.com/apis/libraries/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_JavaScript_frameworks
You probably don't want to do raw Javascript code without any library. Once you decide on a library to use, then you can look at its documentations online or the books about using them. jQuery does have pretty good documentation.

Define "right way."
There are many "right ways" to code an app.
Things to keep in mind are trying to design a nice interface. The interface can make or break an application and studies show that it can even make it seem faster if you do it right. jQuery is good for this.
Another thing to consider going in is what browsers do you want to support? Firefox is really doing well and Google Chrome's market share is growing so you will want so support those for sure. IE is a tough one as it doesn't have the best support for standards, but if you are selling a product you will really want this.

One of the best articles that I've ever come across about the structure of an ajax web application is this one. A little outdated because it refers to XML as the primary data-interchange format, now JSON. jQuery, a javascript framework, contains excellent functionality for both DOM manipulation and AJAX calls. Both are a must in any AJAX-driven web app.

Should you design websites that require JavaScript in this day & age?

It's fall of 2008, and I still hear developers say that you should not design a site that requires JavaScript.
I understand that you should develop sites that degrade gracefully when JS is not present/on. But at what point do you not include funcitonality that can only be powered by JS?
I guess the question comes down to demographics. Are there numbers out there of how many folks are browsing without JS?

Just as long as you're aware of the accessibility limitations you might be introducing, ie for users of screen-reading software, etc.
It's one thing to exclude people because they choose to turn off JS or use a browser which doesn't support it, it's entirely another to exclude them because of a disability.

Two simple questions to help you decide...
Does using javascript provide some
core functionality of your site?
Are you prepared to limit your
potential users to those who have
JS? (ie. Most people)
If you answer yes to both of those, go for it!
Websites are moving (have moved?) from static pages of information to interactive web applications. Without something like Javascript or Flash, making compelling user interactions is sometimes not possible.

Designing to degrade gracefully is the most that should be done. We are moving/have moved past the point of simple web "sites" to web "applications". The only option besides client side scripting to add round trips to the server.
I think (personal opinion) that the "don't use JavaScript" comes more from a lack of understanding of what JavaScript is/does than any actual market data that shows a significant number of people are browsing without it.

It's reasonable to design sites that use JavaScript but it is not safe to assume that all clients have support for Javascript and therefore it is important that you provide a satisfactory experience even when JavaScript is not available

Search Engines don't support JavaScript. They're also blind and don't support CSS. So my suggestion to you is to make sure that the part of your product that needs to be indexable by search engines works without JavaScript and CSS. After that, it really depends on the needs of your users.
If you have a very limited subset of users, then you can actually query them. But to remember that 10% of the population has some form of impairment ranging from vision issues (low vision, color-blindness, etc.) or motor functions (low hand dexterity). These problems tend to be more prominent in the elderly and the knowingly disabled
If your site will target the general audience of Internet users then please make it degrade gracefully, but if you can't do that, then make a no-JavaScript version (like G-mail has).

I think the days of "content sites only" are gone. What we see now is WWW emerging as the platform of web applications, and the latest developments in the browser front (speeding up JS in particular) ar indication of this.
There can be no yes/no answer to your question - you should decide, where on content site<---->web application continuum your site is and how essential is the experience provided by JavaScript. In my opinion - yes it is acceptable to have web applications which require Javascript to function.

Degrading gracefully is a must. At a minimum, you sure make use of the NOSCRIPT tag in order to inform potential customers first that your site requires javascript, and secondly why you require it.
If it's for flashy menus and presentations that I could honestly care less about then I probably won't bother coming back. If there's a real reason that you're requiring javascript (client-side validation on forms, or a real situation that requires AJAX for performance reasons) then say so and your visitors will respond accordingly.
I install extensions that limit both Javascript and Cookies. Websites that don't prominently state their requirements of both usually don't get a second visit unless there's a real need for it.

You should never design a public site to rely on ANY technology/platform. The user agent may not display colour (think screen readers), display graphics (again, think screen readers or text only browsers such as links), etc.
Design your site for the lowest common denominator and then progressively enhance it to add support for specific technologies.
To answer the question directly: No, you cannot assume your users have Javascript, so your site should work without it. Once it does, enhance it with Javascript.

it's not about browser capability, it's about user control. People who install the noscript plugin for firefox so they don't have to put up with punch-the-monkey garbage ( the same problem that inspired stack overflow) will not allow your web site to do anything non-static until they trust you.

In terms of client software consider users/customers who are using a browser that supports some but not all Javascript. For example, most mobile phone browsers support a bit of Javascript but nothing very complicated. The browsers on devices such as the Playstation 3 are similar.
Then there are browsers such as Opera Mini, which support a lot of Javascript but are operating in an environment where the scripts are running on a server that then sends the results to a mobile device.

You should design websites with Javascript in mind--but not implemented. Consider, build it where every click, every action, performs a round trip to the server. That's the default functionality for older browsers, and those without JS turned on.
Then, after it's all built, and everything is working properly, add in JavaScript which hijacks the link, button and other events, and overlay their standard functionality with the Javascript functionality you're wanting.
Building the application like this means that it will ALWAYS work, which ultimately is what you're wanting.

The received wisdom answer is that you can use JavaScript (or any other technology) providing that it 'degrades gracefully'...
I have experience with disability organisations, so accessibility is important to me. But equally, I'm in the business of building attractive, usable websites, so javascript can be a powerful ally. It's a difficult call, but if you can build a rich, javascript-aided site, without completely alienating non-js vistors, then do so. If not, you will have to look at the context of the site and decide which way to jump.
Regardless, there are no rights and wrongs with this question. However, in some countries, there is a requirement to build 'public' sites to be accessible, so this may be yet another factor in your decision. [In the UK, it is the Disability Discrimination Act.. though to my knowledge, no company has been prosecuted for failure to comply]

JavaScript is great for extending the browser to do things like google maps. But it's a pointy instrument, so use it with care.
My bank web site uses JavaScript for basic navigation between pages. Sigh. As a result, it's not usable from my mobile device.
Make sure you're familiar with the Rule of Least Power when considering JavaScript:
When designing computer systems, one
is often faced with a choice between
using a more or less powerful language
for publishing information, for
expressing constraints, or for solving
some problem. This finding explores
tradeoffs relating the choice of
language to reusability of
information. The "Rule of Least Power"
suggests choosing the least powerful
language suitable for a given purpose.

5% according to these statistics: http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp

As you said, demographics. The web is expanding onto devices that doesn't have very much power, for instance cellphones. If your site is usable without javascript, Opera Mini will likely show your site without any problems.

I think Javascript implementations in most modern browsers have now reached a reasonable level of maturity and there are a bunch of Javascript UI frameworks which let you build very attractive Javascript based web applications using web-services and such (regardless of the back-end server platform).
An example is ExtJS - they have got a very extensive AJAX + UI widget framework which I recently used to build a full fledged internal web-app for a client with an ASP.NET backend (for webservices).

I think it comes down to what you're about to do. Are you writing a web APPLICATION? Then I think you're bound to use javascript and/or something like GWT. Just have a look at all the social sites, and google aplications like gmail. If you're writing a webpage with product descriptions and hardly any interactivity, then you can make the javascript optional.

I agree with the majority of the stackoverflow respondents. JavaScript has matured and offers an "extra" level of functionality to a webpage, especially for forms. Those who turn off cookies and JS have likely been bitten while surfing in dangerous waters. For the corporate power users that pay my way either in B2B or retail sites, JS is a proven and trusty tool. Until something better comes along (and it will) I'm sticking with JS.

There's addon for Firefox called NoScript which have 27,501,701 downloads. If you site won't work without JavaScript most of those guys wouldn't want to use it.
Why you would install that addon? Ever wanted to get rid of the popup on the site that cover the most of the useful text you want to rid? Or disable flash animation? Or be sure that evil site won't steal your cookies?

Some corporate environments won't allow Javascript, by policy or by firewall. It closes the door to one avenue of virus infection.
Whether you think this is a good idea or not, realize that not everyone has full control over their browser and it might not be their choice.

There is a gradient between web sites and web applications. However, you should alway be able to say "we are building a web site" or "we are building a web application".
Web sites should be readable down to plain HTML (no CSS, no images, no JavaScript).
Web applications, of course, could just say "Sorry, JavaScript is needed" (which also assumes CSS for layout). Application should still be able to work without images.

The accessibility issue is the only important technical issue, all other issues can be socially engineered. When one says that javascript reduced accessibility and another says that Web Applications can use javascript, can we take these two together to imply that all blind people are unemployed? There has to be some kind of momentum in making javascript accessible. Maybe a Screenreader object on the javascript side which can detect the presence of a screenreader and then maybe send hints to the screenreader, Screenreaders which can hook onto the browser, and maybe it gets glued together with a screenreader toolbar.

if you want your site viewable by the top 100 companies in the US. I would write without javascript.

Independence from Javascript and graceful degradation are important to an application despite the actual demographics -- because such an application probably has better software design.
The "human user without Javascript" may be purely hypothetical (for example, if you're trying to make money with your product). But designing for that hypothetical user encourages modular software design which will pay off as you continue to develop your app.
Javascript provides functionality. HTML provides data (on the page itself, and via links that point to more data). As a general rule that reaches well beyond browser apps: A well-designed software product will separate data from functionality. All data should be available, and the functionality should be a separate layer that consumes the data.
If your Javascript is creating data at runtime, then it's time to get specific and figure out whether your webpage really is a piece of software (e.g. a mortgage calculator) or whether it's a document containing data (e.g. a list of mortgage interest rates). This should tell you whether it makes sense to rely on Javascript.
As a final note/example, demographics can be misleading. Relatively few humans browse your site without Javascript, but lots of machines (search bots, data miners, screen readers for the disabled, etc.) are browsing your site without Javascript. Again, the distinction between data and functionality are important -- the bots are just making requests and looking for data in the responses. They don't need functionality. But if your user needs to invoke functions just to make your data accessible, the bots are getting no value from your site.
One side point about the screen readers and other accessibility considerations for the disabled. This is an important niche demographic: a mind that navigates data in a human way, but who can only get data from your site in the same way machines get it. By providing data cleanly and semantically on your page, you make it available to the largest possible set of accessibility tools.
Note this doesn't exclude Javascript from consideration. Our mortgage calculator example can still work: accept input from the user, invoke Javascript, and write the output back into the clean semantic data layer of the page. Screen readers can then read it! And if they can't, you're encouraging the development of better screen readers that can.

If you expect your app to work for everyone, you'll need a backup for all your javascript functionality. If it's form validation, you should also check the data on the server before saving it. So the answer is Yes, it's okay, but have a backup. Do not rely on it.

As many people are saying, it's important to consider your user base, but whoever your users are there's a strong possibility that some (stats say 10%) of them will have some sort of disabilities, and screen readers don't like javascript. If you're only adding simple things, a javascript menu or something, then just make it degrade (or don't do it). If the site depends on javascript to work properly, make two versions, one for javascript and one without.
I generally find that anything too javascript heavy is very difficult to make degrade well without just having javascript re-writing the page to a javascript version if the user can take it. Given this, it's well worth writing two pages from square one for complicated stuff.
I would say that there are very very very few web sites that should be running without some support for users without javascript. You'd need to have a very dynamic application that completely didn't make sense as static pages,or you'd need to have a audience you could guarantee were ok with it (like on an office Intranet say).

Well, it depends on your userbase. If you know that people will be using your site from mobile devices, it's good to have unobtrusive JavaScript. However, if you're trying to appeal to a tech-savvy crowd, don't bother with it.
However, if you're appealing to a crowd that may be using screen readers (blind people), I'd highly suggest using WAI-ARIA standards. Dojo's widget system has full support for this, and would be a great and easy way to do it.
Anyway, in most cases, you don't need unobtrusive JavaScript. Most people who have JavaScript disabled are either using a smartphone, using Lynx, or have NoScript installed. It's enabled by default in all the major browsers, so you shouldn't have to worry.
Lastly, it's good to at least have some unobtrusive JavaScript. <noscript> tags are your best friend. For example, one may want to replace a widget that draws rating stars with text. Example using dojo:
<div dojoType="dojox.Rating" stars="5" value="4"></div>
<noscript>4/5</noscript>

It's the 21st century. People not permitting JavaScript need to exit the last millennium, posthaste. It's a mature, widely used, and very useful technology that is one of the foundations of the recent expansion in useful web services.

You should be tying the functionality of your website to your audience. That being said, every modern browser (save for the mobile platform) includes javascript, and so unless your audience includes luddites with decade old computers, you can assume they have javascript.
The people you need to worry about, then, are those that specifically turn it off. This includes:
Corporate networks with tough security (not common, but some financial and defense institutions)
Paranoid web-heads
So, first, who is your audience? Are there other websites that are comparable to your target? Look at their site and success - do they degrade gracefully, and would yo be satisfied with their level of success?
If you are targeting mobile applications, though, you can't guarantee javascript.
-Adam

I would say that you should look at your target audience. If you can reasonably expect that they will have js enabled, and making everything work without any js is too much of a pain, then by all means - go ahead and ignore the non-js crowd, if, on the other hand you have to create a site that will be used by a very large audience/or you are perhaps building a government web site, then you must make sure that everything works, and it is easier in those cases to first build the site so that it works without any js, and add all the nice time-saving ajaxy bits later.
In general though, almost everyone has js enabled by default.
Though you should be aware that server-side validation of user posted data is a must in either case.

Will server-side JavaScript take off? Which implementation is most stable? [closed]

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.