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 11 years ago.
HTML and CSS are showing their age.
SASS generates CSS (because CSS isn't clean enough). Graphic Designers don't work in HTML, they work in graphics tools then have to translate it to HTML/CSS. JavaScript has to have abstractions like jQuery, and CSS has a bunch of hacks to even start approaching consistent predictable user experience.
It feels like people are doing some wonderful things despite the technologies, not because of them.
Surely there is a better way?!? Something more closely aligned with the task at hand.. of providing a fluid intuitive (consistent) user experience to let users achieve their goals.
Thoughts?
Nothing, I believe they are here to stay for next 10 years.
The Internet experience might be enhanced by technologies like Flash & Silverlight but what's valuable about Internet is not the technology but the information.
Therefore, breaking Internet compatibility for pure technological enhancement will never work.
BLTML: Bacon, Lettuce and Tomato Markup Language.
In the future, the web with only be used for posting tasty things we want to eat, so it makes sense to develop a language geared just for this.
The pictures of kittens with words on them will likely be supported with a gross hack .
Graphic Designers don't work in HTML
DTP designers don't produce paper and ink either. Design something and produce something, these are separable tasks - when you have an idea for a tv spot you still need lots of technology between your creativeness and the result, the same applies for the web.
Javascript has to have abstractions
like JQuery, and CSS has a bunch of
hacks to even start approaching
consistent predictable user
experience.
Oh man, js doesn't has to have, developers simply like to make their job easier, this rule applies to various programming languages, it's like saying python has to have django. Frameworks and libraries are over the language, they are not a must.
CSS 'has a bunch of hacks' because some browser producers don't give a damn about something called "standards", not because the language is badly designed.
Surely there is a better way?!?
Something more closely aligned with
the task at hand.. of providing a
fluid intuitive (consistent) user
experience to let users achieve their
goals.
What user experience is not provided with html,css,js? I really don't get your point, and what you expect from the Web.
Oh, and if you are like 'you know, you need flash for something or whatever', start getting interested in canvas.
HTML and CSS are here to stay for a long time yet!
While they may not be as intuitive to use for designers as say PhotoShop, well formed HTML is machine readable - this means that it can be used by humans AND computers. This is very important and useful. Imagine a web full of pictures that look beautiful but cannot be crawled or searched by Google?
HTML and CSS are superior because of the structured information that underlines them.
I don't think that HTML and CSS are showing their age, I think that browsers are showing their age. I like being able to describe what I want done, but not HOW to do it.
I guess what I want is browser vendors to use one rendering engine, or if nothing else, a SSL-type of certification for browsers. Kind of a global impartial body that's measures browsers on a quality bar-like scale.
Just like with SSL certification, it's done by a third party. I'm not sure what the pricing structure would be but I don't think you should have to pay for it. I think that it would make a great "works in this browser" logo like the Spam Free and Mal-ware Free logos we've seen popping up on sites over the years. Or perhaps an Acid1, Acid2, Acid3 passed logos for browsers.
I would argue that libraries like JQuery and Prototype exist because browsers all have their quirks. We just got tired of writing all that handling code, so some very smart people did this for us.
Personally I think HTML and CSS are very elegant, and while the W3C certainly isn't hasty, I think it's probably fair to say that a certain browser has been holding back design on the web more than the technologies themselves.
CSS3 has support for fantastic things such as web fonts with #fontface. Javascript engines are becoming increasingly speedy and allowing for things like John Resig's processing port which would have been unimaginable years ago.
We need to see users adopting new browsers at a faster pace, and we need to see vendors getting behind efforts to encourage their users to upgrade.
I think it's a mistake to think that abstractions are a negative thing, and indicate some problem with the base technology - technologies naturally evolve through abstraction. There's some inconsistency in your post in the sense that you decry the need for abstraction, but then mention that you desire consistency - that consistency across clients is achieved through abstraction. I no longer have to worry about how different clients handle the DOM - jquery does this for me. CSS hacks by the same token aren't really necessary, and it's quite acceptable to serve a different stylesheet to that browser; the rendering difference between the other mainstream engines are pretty minimal.
Please also consider that we're still using a lot of "old" technologies (Unix, c, c++ to name a few), because they are functional, elegant and well designed.
Worse is better. HTML and CSS are never going away because of the large volume of content that's written against that platform. Same thing with C. It's a terrible language, but it will always be with us because nearly all software is written in either C or C++.
A huge volume of JAVA means that's never going away. There's still a market for COBOL programmers.
It's a popular idea among some programmers to get really frustrated at a crufty system like HTML/CSS/JS, and think "Hay, let's demolish it and start over". Well you know, I could invent my own phone that is 100 times better, and with better sound quality than any other phone. That's the easy part. The hard part is having someone to call.
Like it or not, HTML/CSS/JS is the technology trio that became popular, and that means millions of people have invested trillions of dollars in producing content for the technology. Millions of people will be quite reluctant to throw that effort away because someone says HTML/CSS/JS sucks.
It's a mysterious thing figuring out what technology is going to become popular. It's not something you can control for the benefit of your own comfort. But at least, you know, there's such lovely computer science concepts as "abstraction", which if you can master it, will be your secret weapon. Jquery is an example, but it can be taken very much further.
The problem would not be to design something to replace HTML/CSS/JS, but to get browser vendors to adopt it. Good luck with that.
As central as the web experience and HTML are in my life and in your life, the only computer most people in the world use is their phone. The web just doesn't work well even on a multitouch touchscreen.
Just like you no longer enter your game using the ROM basic before playing it, and you no longer see text only screens around (well mostly), some day the web is going to be consumed by specialized devices or by specialized applications for your phone. Machine readable web, or in other words, web services. You can call that web 3.0 if you like.
I believe that the problem is not HTML, CSS and JS or their age (they are constantly evolving anyway). Theoretically you should be able to create one version of something and have it work exactly the same across different platforms. Which is where the problem lies: the platforms.
Saying those technologies are old and therefore need replacing is like saying C++ is old and therefore should not be used for game development. They are actually very appropriate and powerful tools for what they were designed for. Therefore I would predict that its not the HTML, CSS and JS that need to or will be replaced, but that the current platforms need to get their shit together (some more than others) and follow the bloody standards!
That said, they do need to keep evolving to stay relevant.
I think XML with XSL is the future. Graphical designer tools would come with their own XSL stylesheets, tailored to the strengths of the tool, and the tool would generate XML files that use the stylesheets.
But I'm no clairvoyant; what's going to be hot in the next 5 years, who knows. :-P
If you listen to Microsoft, Silverlight will feature prominently in the new web. Since it uses XAML, which is just a text file, it has the potential to be search engine friendly.
Others like Flash.
Of course I am sure that something else new will be invented in the future....
I think RIA's like Adobe flex/air/apollo and Silverlight etc will eat into some of the html market share , but not totally replace it.
Some of the issues that plagued RIA's like SEO related stuff, lack of back button support are being resolved.
The good thing with RIA's is that it is browser independent (as long as the user has the right plugin) , I could foresee future browsers launching with RIA support built-in thereby ensuring a 100% market penetration for apps built using them.
For documents and usual web pages, HTML and CSS are there to stay and evolve (Sass is nice indeed).
For applications, mobile code (javascript most probably) driving canvas-like graphics will help merge web apps and internet-enabled desktop applications.
— I wonder how ridiculous these predictions will look like in 10 years :)
Related
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 6 years ago.
Improve this question
At first glance this question may seem like I'm looking for opinions or a discussion, but hear me out. While I'm sure everyone has their own opinion of which tools are best to use, there have got to be some factual reasons why Flash's popularity faded away. I'm sure there were certain events and inventions that caused people to prefer other tools, and I'm dying to know what those events are. So I am looking for answers that are based on facts and events. All I can gather from the research I've done and the projects I've seen is that Flash used to be really popular for creating interactive media or cartoon-like movies, but now it's not.
The background story to this question is that over the past few months I've been creating a project with Adobe Animate and Actionscript for a college class. It's been fun and I find that Animate is extremely useful. I would like to think that the skills I've learned will be useful in the future, but I've heard from several different people that Flash is pretty much irrelevant now and I can't figure out why.
I know that front end developers are using Javascript and HTML/CSS for most things, and I do understand some of the advantages. Javascript programs seem to have more open-source availability, and of course no one wants to pay a subscription for Adobe products forever. But what I don't get is what replaced the visual aspect of the "stage". Something as simple as drawing a circle could become hard really quick, or tedious at the least, if you're just using code alone. And if you draw two or more objects, you have to worry about their relative positions. Flash makes that super simple by allowing you to just drag them to where they need to be. But once again I imagine it would be really boring to have to use trial and error to position things solely with code.
So are the Javascript coders using something similar to Flash for their animations that I'm just not aware of, or are they really just using code alone? If they are just using code, WHY would they give up the stage aspect of design?
Politics, sadly. Flash was/is superior to HTML5 in almost every way (explained below), but there were a number of non-technological factors that ushered in its demise. Below are a few that come to mind:
1) Ads. This was the way most people grew to recognize Flash content; if it was flashy and annoying, it was probably Flash. This was unfortunate as it was not the technology itself that was the problem, but the use of it. (the fact that Flash was used so much for this type of content says something about how effective Flash was at creating this type of content).
2) Full Flash websites/games. Again, this was not so much a problem with Flash, but those who used it to create the content. Often devs will produce content on machines that are significantly faster than the average user's, and do most, if not all, testing locally.
3) The 1st iPhone was quite slow compared to those that exist today, and it was slow compared to a majority of computers as well. It is no surprise then that a technology that specializes in multimedia, running in a virtual machine, may have problems running on such a device; however, to say this would be to say something negative about the device, and rather than do that a 100% of the blame was put on the technology. The average consumer's experience with my previous points made this tactic easy to pull off.
4) Adobe gave up after losing the PR battle. There were many things they could have done to save Flash, such as: not dropping Android support, not dropping Flex support, not dropping Flash Builder support, and not ignoring the dwindling Flash engineer community. There is no reason why the iPhone could not run Flash today (and run it well), and there is no reason why Adobe couldn't create a transcompiler to convert content; I already did this (flash api, full as3 language support, e4x, etc.), but it's not open source as of yet. If one engineer could do this, they certainly could have!
5) Overblown publicity of Flash vulnerabilities. Critical vulnerabilities are found in programs all the time, browsers, operating systems (yes, even OS X), etc. But due to the growing discontent for Flash in the general public, issues found in Flash were covered as if Flash was the only program that was exposing people to vulnerabilities.
Technology: Is/was Flash tech superior? Absolutely, HTML5 was actually a huge step back, and here is why:
1) Flash was stable. If you got your app to work, it would almost be guaranteed not only to function exactly the same in all browsers and operating systems, but also to look identical as well. Want to develop an HTML5 app? Either use a javascript library to fix all/most browser inconsistencies, or welcome yourself to a debugging nightmare. So, of course, you add that abstraction layer, but now what happens when you still have an issue? Well, now you have to dig through that layer..
2) Flash/AS3 does it better. Want to have pixel perfect text across all devices? Flash, yes. HTML5, nope. Want REAL classes, typing, Vectors, weak references, interfaces, objects as keys, namespaces, private variables, asset embedding, etc. ? Flash, yes. HTML5.. while it's possible to create a compile-to-JavaScript language to pull most of this off, now you have to deal with that output when you're debugging. How about complex, nested, animations? How easy/fast is that to do in Flash... Sure, editors can be made to output the equivalent in HTML5, but most will not stream like Flash did, and will have severe limitations compared to what Flash can do.
3) The Flash API. The Flash API was well documented, powerful, and pretty simple to use. Compare this to the joy of searching online looking at compatibility lists and vendor prefixes for HTML5.
4) todo... there is quite a bit more.
HTML5 is better only in the fact that it is 100% open (and it's not a plugin, which people tend to dislike). The SWF specification is open, and there was an open-source Flash player (the Tamarin project); so, it is not as if Flash was completely closed like some would suggest; personally, I would trade the openness of HTML5 for stability and consistency any day.
However, if openness is one's primary concern, then one would probably view the step backwards in capability and efficiency as worth it.
BTW: I actually write all my HTML5 and NodeJS code in Flash/AS3 and compile to HTML5/JS. I can still use Flash for debugging (and as my gold standard if you will), which is fantastic..
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 9 years ago.
Hey everyone — HTML5 Boilerplate and HTML5 Reset are two HTML, CSS, and JavaScript templates with a lot of modern best practices built-in. Their goals are largely the same:
Fast, robust, modern Web development
HTML5 (duh!)
Cross-browser normalization (including support for IE6 and mobile browsers)
Progressive enhancement and graceful degradation
Performance optimizations
Not a framework, but the starting point for your next project
Obviously, they're very similar in function. In what ways are their implementations different (for example, perhaps IE-specific CSS fixes are achieved using different techniques)? Are they at all different in scope? It seems like HTML5 Boilerplate is a bit larger (build tools, server configuration, etc.), but it's hard to know where it goes beyond HTML5 Reset when it comes to the actual site that people will see.
In general, both projects set out to provide a solid starting point for developers working on web projects. They both get rid of a lot of the tedious, some-what error-prone boilerplate that many developers find themselves re-creating for each project. The details in how they go about it are slightly different, but for the most part, they achieve the same results.
HTML5Boilerplate has, as you noted, added in some build-script pieces to help developers follow best practices to speed up their pages in terms of server-side items, such as far-future expires headers, etc. where-as the HTML5Reset project is more focused on the semantics, content, and styling. For example, HTML5Reset has more example structure for the content of the page in HTML5 (to help show people how to use some of the new elements), whereas HTML5Boilerplate does not.
The response-time and page speed parts that HTML5Boilerplate includes get more and more important as more users find themselves on mobile platforms, and as Google increases the effect page response times have on page rank. There are lots of papers that show a small increase in the page response time has a measurable negative impact on how your site is used and perceived (especially in an eCommerce setting...often a 100ms slower page will get percentage less things sold).
On the CSS front, the majority of the reset style section for both projects is very much the same, with some minor differences in what the baseline is set to. The IE specific fixes, however, are largely the same, with HTML5Boilerplate asserting a bit more control than HTML5Reset over how IE styles some things like form elements (ie. check box / radio buttons and valid / invalid states)
Two major CSS areas that HTML5Boilerplate covers that HTML5Reset does not are common helper classes to assist with making sites more accessible, such as .hidden and .visuallyhidden, as well as some substantial adjustments to the print styles that serve to both make printing more similar across browsers, as well as some cost-savings and accessibility things like making background images transparent (to not waste toner), and adding the actual URL to links and the title to abbreviations.
I would highly suggest reading through both projects' info and how they do things in a side-by-side comparison because the similarities, and also the differences (and the reasoning behind them) is quite informative and has helped me to better decide what parts of each I wanted to use.
Ultimately, just like any "library" sort of project, you as the developer need to understand what you are doing and probably should tweak your baseline to meet the particular needs of the project.
You can use either one...
Like #murtaugh said (http://5by5.tv/bigwebshow/45) you don't need to learn anything when u first start with Reset. In my experience, working in an R&D department, when you need to demo or do quick iterations you can use the Reset (or Boiler if u already know it). When I need to build the product for deployment I turn to Boiler just because has more stuff.
Works for me but now because I know both I can easily use either one.
I actually almost want to say using the traditional reset.css is the best... I find no problems with compatibility in my mobile apps. However, I am developing these apps using the jQuery mobile framework.
So I guess it's really conditional as to what kind of tools you are using. Phonegap doesn't seem to have any problems compiling my code into all OS. And viewing my source code in emulators looks perfectly fine...
So I really don't see the point of a boilerplate unless you are trying to achieve polyfills.
I work in an environment where previous developers roped the company into using both JQuery and Prototype...and it's a mess. Not only do we have to work out of compatibility mode, but just think of the extra overhead that it causes. When debugging, Prototype "hijacks" debug messages in Firebug, which leads to even more work. And the maddening part is that I've been undoing this mess for months and am just starting to get close to being done with it....and just when I'm about to pull the plug on Prototype I always seem to find another section that relies on it...
It's for this reason that I argue every time against combinations of frameworks that have similar purposes. For example, no matter how cool you might think YUI Grids is, if you load the entire YUI Framework you best not be doing Jquery, Moo, or Prototype. You'd be just needlessly bogging yourself down. It kills the load time (which wrecks the user experience) and just gives developers headaches and needless work.
Look at this phase of your site like building the foundation. You have the opportunity to use anything you want to use, but you have to be careful not to "paint yourself into a corner" so to speak. So, use purpose-built and best in class tools that are available based on your resources. Don't just use something to be cute! We're lucky in that many very high quality tools are free, so we have a choice. But know that you're steering the direction of your site for the future, and you might be the person like me who has to deal with the consequences if your decisions are hastily made.
So, unless you're NEVER going to use another framework, I endorse Reset...or even just doing top quality standards compliant CSS.
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 12 years ago.
When we make a website with some interactivity (not whole flash site). should we always find a way JavaScript way before to use Flash? Should we consider Flash a last resort, if possible?
It is true Flash will not be indexed by Search engine. and it will not run on apple devices.
Will javascript also perform better than flash, in terms of speed?
Edit:
And how to know , the effect which we want to achieve and possible in Flash , can be possible in javascript?
Flash has it's advantages. I personally love JavaScript and are always surprised what is possible without Flash. But on todays browsers you can do a lot more with Flash and it ill perform a lot faster.
In the bright future, you might be able to do almost everything you can do with Flash using JavaScript and the canvas element. But until the majority of all browsers will support that, there are some things you can only do with Flash.
I don't use flash on any of my projects anymore and I also have a lot of fance stuff on them. But I also have a fallback for non-JS users and you should also have that for non-Flash users. and because a JavaScript application/widget is build using HTML and CSS, such a fallback is much easier to realize than doing it with flash.
I don't say, that you should not use flash at all, but you should make yourself a list of things you want to have on your website and than search for JavaScript libraries or plugins that can do that.
Isn't anyone bored with this question yet? There are tons of answers/non answers on the internet. One could write a book about Flash advantages & disadvantages, actually many books :) I personally don't think there's a rule you can apply to every project that will let you know if you should or shouldn't use Flash. This is a personal choice , based on the type of project you're dealing with , the languages you're comfortable with and the objective you're trying to achieve.
Some clients won't care about not being able to be accessible on Ipads, some others will. You don't tackle a business site the way you would tackle an artist portfolio. Keep your options opened and , more to the point, master as many languages as you can and when you do, I have no doubt you won't bother with this question again.
so:
should we always find a JavaScript way before to use Flash?
why not? if JS can do it with similar quality & performance, why go Flash?
It is true Flash will not be indexed by Search engine.
Google has made a lot of progress in indexing Flash content so it's not entirely true
and it will not run on apple devices.
False. It will run on most apple devices, of course not the Ipad!
Will javascript also perform better than flash, in terms of speed?
that would depend on what you're trying to do
And how to know , the effect which we want to achieve and possible in Flash , can be possible in javascript?
Some level of understanding of both languages would help
I'd say no, but then again I might be bias.
Flash is good for its own certain points and needs. I think that it has received bad press as it has been misused a lot, it is not a replacement to other languages but has been used that way for quite a while. It should be used when needed, rather than an instant fix to make things look "cool" or "modern".
Flash is good for application based design, multimedia and complex animations. This admittedly is rather fuzzy, but it's hard to define nowadays closer than that. Javascript on the whole is a very powerful tool, and the new HTML <canvas> tags allow a great flexibility on what can be accomplished with JS, CSS and HTML, but requires specific support that isn't guaranteed on all browsers (10% of people still use IE6 supposedly) so it's very much a gamble on who your target market is to what you should be doing.
On the whole if you know what you are doing it is possible to do nearly all that flash does in javascript/css/back end technologies, but it is less encapsulated than a flash example, and as far as I know flash is more efficient in its resource allocation and can take advantage of CPU enhancement, where javascript can't as of yet. It all depends on specifically what you are trying to put together and how complex/portable you want the code to be. If you are putting together a 3d shooter, use flash, if you are trying to move a <div> 5 pix to the right, use javascript.
Flash in itself will run on "apple devices" except for the iPhone and offshoots of this technology (iPad for example) but will still run in safari etc. on macs. and is constantly getting better at being indexed on search browsers, and there are get-arounds for that anyway, so that shouldn't be the reason for stopping you.
Have a look at jquery examples like this page to see some of the fun things you can do, and maybe some inspiration.
Everyone keeps saying flash is dead, silverlight is dead, and the future is HTML 5. Most technical people I've talked to seem feel that this is a generally accepted fact. Just a matter of when the spec will be finalized, and when each major browser will finally incorporate all the individual features. But it seems to me there's a big elephant in this room: where are the tools?
Flash. Maybe on it's way out, but it had one hell of a designer. It had drawing tools, layers, timeline support, tweening, etc. It made building rich UI and animations REALLY EASY, which is why it's everywhere. Without flash I'm assuming we turn to canvas? We can't be planning on doing all our UI in code? Where is my 'Canvas Studio MX'?
Video. So we agreed on a totally open/free format with ogg vorbis. Sweet. Is there a good open source set of libraries out there for converting/authoring an ogg file?
Javascript. If we jump on board the HTML5 bus, we're pretty much all agreeing that the engine runs only on Javascript right? Is there some really effective JS IDE out there? Notepad++ is good, but is there something that can make refactoring a really huge application NOT a PITA? And here I'm referring to the fact that JS is dynamically typed, and so today it seems really difficult to get A)Intellisense, and B)Refactoring Support(Rename Method, Get Reference Count etc.). Either the language needs to change, or we need a really smart editor.
Maybe I'm raving here, but I'm a web dev by profession, and I would LOVE to get away from propietary compilers and overcomplicated,convoluted 'super tools' that cause more problems that they fix. But these points seems like real problems to me, and I'm surprised they aren't being given more attention. Or maybe they are, and if so, please feel free to show me the light :)
Web developers come from a variety of backgrounds ranging from Computer science to Graphic design. The coding environment they use reflects this variety and whilst some coders are comfortable writing an entire application using only Textmate, some others prefer to work with Aptana, the Flash IDE or Dreamweaver ( no quality comparison here ).
I think your point is valid , if Flash is about to be replaced by HTML5 , the web developers who were using tools such as the Flash IDE will expect tools on the par with what they're used too.
Another way to look at your question could be to wonder if Flash's announced death isn't the death of a certain vision of the web. A vision led by creatives who , not comfortable with the pure coding approach , could nonetheless express themselves with Flash, which to a certain extent , hid some of the complexities of programming or at least made it easier for them to tackle.
I agree that there are some tools missing at the moment and as PatrickS mentions, it depends on your perspective and what you are used too.
A website developer would be fairly happy at the moment. Not much changes for them. They keep the same workflow and as more tools become available they will be added to their environment - and besides, they can get by with just copying-n-pasting with notepad etc.
An animator can currently not do much with HTML5. They require a tool such as Flash IDE. It must also integrate with packages such as illustrator. Could be a while before we see a stable, usable tool.
An Applications developer (which is the area that I fall into) will probably try to avoid HTML5. Simply because JavaScript is not suitable for large applications development. Netbeans at the very least exists and appears to support things like code completion, refactoring etc which will help if you end up having to do some serious JS development- but I suspect it does not match Visual Studio.
A games developer developing something of significance would have the same issues at the applications developer and animator. While yes you can make a game just through code, things like platformers, adventures games etc really need a Flash IDE to layout all the graphic assets. Likewise, for programming, JavaScript will be more pain than AS3 or C#
Flash: There are a number of strong languages that do amazing things without the nice fluffy UI and timeline, layers and such. I'm sure one will come along, but is not a show-stopper, not do many people care right now - so no elephant (IMHO).
Javascript: There is no shortage of places IDE's where you can use Javascript. Sure you can use Notepad if you like, or else Eclipse, TextMate etc... I see an editor as an aid and not a dependency when refactoring code. JS has its problems but to date its proven (again, just my opinion) that it has more to offer to compensate for that.
Perhaps I'm just unaware of the competitors, but it seems when it comes to client-side scripting in the browser and DOM, Javascript is it. I know there's VBScript, but it really isn't even in the same ballpark as JS (not even cross platform, for starters).
I'm just curious about how this came to be. Surely there would be a general desire for a new language to replace Javascript: built from scratch to do all the things Javascript has been bent and moulded into these days (look at the reliance on JS Libraries).
Momentum. JavaScript has been around for 15 or so years, and browser manufacturers have worked for 15 or so years to make it work in their browsers.
If a competitor came along, it would need to really bring something new to the table in order to convince everyone to a) adopt it, b) live with locking out all the users of older browsers like IE7, Firefox 3.0, Chrome 1.0 etc. and c) find replacements for all existing libraries like jQuery, prototype, extJS etc.
In short: we don't need another Standard, let's rather improve JavaScript and build on the rich foundation that already exists instead of starting back from stone age again.
There is! Ones that spring to mind are Flash, ActiveX, and Java... But these all have their drawbacks. Mainly security and integration with the browser/DOM.
Flash and Java live in their own little world, by design (and to address security issues). They can't alter the HTML around them. ActiveX has access to the DOM, but also everything else on your computer.
JavaScript seems to have found a nice balance between flexibility and security, it can trivially interact and alter the pages HTML/CSS, do "safe" networking, has a decent standard library (which has things like JSON, XmlHttpRequest'sih networking, DOM manipulation, and so on). Most importantly, it's available in basically all vaguely-modern browsers, on all platforms, in a consistent manner (compared to CSS)
There are problems with JavaScript, but nothing major. The biggest is the performance. Load a comment page on Digg and watch your CPU usage. Chance are it will be 100% of one CPU core. There are projects to improve this, like SquirrelFish, TraceMonkey, and other strangely named things. But the performance is adequate to do some extremely impressive things (Google Spreadsheet, for example).
Basically, JavaScript is great, and it's drawbacks aren't nearly as big as the other competitors.
JavaScript won because it was introduced by Netscape in the period when they had above 90% percent market share. IE and other browsers had no choice but to support it also.
If a new language should be introduced, it would have to be either by agreement between all major browser vendors, or in a period where a single browser have enough market share to push it through.
Microsoft could probably have pulled it off some years ago when IE has an extremely large market share (before the rise of Firefox and Safari), but they chose instead (for strategic reasons) to let the browser stagnate.
Today, a new language would require agreement between at least Mozilla, IE and Safari to gain traction, and I think that is highly unlikely. The browser vendors have invested a lot of ressources in optimization, compatibility testing and so on for JavaScript - why should they want to start from scratch with a totally new language - and have to support two languages in parallel for decades to come? The cost greatly outweights any benefits.
Anyway, it is quite unrealistic to believe that a new language designed from scratch could be significantly better than JavaScript.
Show me another language that isn't reliant on libraries?
C, C++, C#, VBs, ... all rely on libraries. The only difference is that they often come with a standard set of libraries.
So do we really want is a standard set of libraries? What we're currently getting is a range of library sets (JQuery, prototype, extjs, mootools, etc). This is a good thing since we the developers get to choose one that suits our needs. In addition these libraries can be included and evolved without changes to the client-side component.
I can think of no compelling language feature missing from Javascript. By compelling I mean so earth shatteringly important that I'd be willing to alienate those browsers that do not support it.
Standardized (ECMA-262)
Common syntax and relatively simple to master
Good browser support
Extendable
Still being developed
Relatively quick based on how much data it needs to process sometimes.
If a good competitor had arrived before 1999 (ECMAScript 3), it would probably be a tie between those two.
There are other languages for client side scripting, but AFAIK, none are integrated into a browser.
Both Flash and Silverlight have their own Languages. Flash has ActionScript, while Silverlight has many and all that work under the DLR including Python and Ruby.
To your second point as to why, more specifically you mention reliance on JS libraries as a flaw in the language; Libraries are popular, not because the language if broken, but because the standard API is broken. The existence of such great libs builds on the power of the language.
There is nothing particularly wrong with JavaScript, it has some features that up to very recently would have been esoteric or academic. First class functions for example.
Also, ubiquity / mass existing runtime deployment is a very compelling feature. ;)
I recommend you to view Douglas Crockford’s presentation about “The JavaScript Programming Language” to learn about the history of JavaScript.
I think Javascript (ECMAScript) with its C like syntax is so popular for some of the reasons C is:
Relatively small number of language
keywords (easier to learn).
Concise and efficient syntax (quick to write).
Easily extendable
through external libraries and APIs that do
not pollute the basic language (ie Browser DOM,FilesystemObject etc).
Creating a new language that will provide many of the current libraries "built-in" is always risky as it starts to limit future applicability of the language and makes learning the base language harder.
This would be even more problematic for a client side browser language because the language designers can't possibly know how the language may be used in the future.
I think Javascript the language is fine in its current role as the "glue" that links so many other client sode technologies.
There are no other competitors because while Javascript is not perfect, it does the job.
I guess because the demand for it would have to be huge for browsers to implement it.
After all, it's the browsers that process and run the JavaScript and you'd have to have a large amount of sites using the language in order to make the browsers interested in implementing it. Then again no-one would use it if there was no browser support in the first place.
i'd say that this is because client side web development is still a very young branch of programming.
if you look at it only now it has become more widespread since we moved to faster "intertubes" :) and we're not using modems anymore.
and the problem for clent based web development is that it's not up to the developer what platform he'll use but it depends on the browser manufacturers.
and they change slow.
VB script's demise was in my opinion its VB-innes. too much unnecessary stuff.
As for javascript it will mature, but it's a start.
Browser support. If its not an MS tech the it most likely will not go into IE. If it's not in IE then no one can use it. If it is an MS tech, then most likely only IE will have the right to use it as it will be closed source and proprietary. If only IE supports it then only some developers will use it.
To challenge JavaScript it must work just as easily and more consistently across all of the major web browsers. Without browser support any new client side web tech is destined to fail.
I think it has to do with standardization, because durring the last browser-war (ie v. netscape) there were two, Netscape's ECMA (+1 Geek point for you if you knew this was the real name for JavaScript) and Microsoft's JScript, obviously ECMA (JavaScript) won out and became the defacto standard.
Now, we have another browser-war in progress and each of the 2 (3 if you count Chrome 12% FFS) major competitors 3 fully (with a few edge-cases) support JavaScript.
My guess is that its ubiquity and ease of integration in any new user agent project. It comes built into almost all browsers so you dont have to download/install/configure anything to have it running. once you look at user agents off desktops (wii, iphone, windows mobile, n95 etc) the availability of any of the contendes dries up quick - so you code for html and javascript becuase it will work most of the time.
I agree with Michael, we should improve Javascript, not worry about competitors because there aren't going to be any, in fact even Javascript 2.0 seems so far from reaching reality.
Since Javascript is such an ambiguous language, we're able to create libraries (jQuery) and even abstractions (Objective-J) and not worry about all the problems that Javascript has at its heart.
After so many years we don't even have CSS implemented same in all the browser, same goes for the JavaScript, IE has one model and rest of browsers has another Model (I mean like Event Handlers and attaching events).
If new competitor comes, it has no chance, neither it has so much time as css and javascript had.