"Ary Borenszweig" <a...@esperanto.org.ar> wrote in message news:gvcehp$2rd...@digitalmars.com... > grauzone escribió: >>> browsers. What's the big deal everyone have with Javascript? >> >> It's unnecessary, annoying, slower, and adds security holes. > > Anything which connects to the internet poses a security hole, like your > web browser. So that's not a reason. >
Yea, well, why add more? > Also, Javascript makes some stuff faster because you don't have to reload > the whole page again. > In theory, sure. Now in practice: 1. The JS still has to be parsed and executed. That takes time in addition to everything else the browser would normally be doing. 2. The time taken by all of the other useless crap the JS is often doing can easily overshadow the time for a few extra k of content. 3. A lot of times it'll even add extra trips to the server (and in many cases, a number of complete different servers/domains) because in addition to loading the main page and images, a lot of those AJAX-heads have decided they have to have a bunch of individual pieces of content downloaded individually by a script in the main page. That's a lot slower than just downloading it as part of the original page. 4. Like grauzone said, there are other ways to decrease the need for full-page reloads. >> About AJAX, you know it breaks the back button and all other sorts of >> practical things you are used from normal web browsing. > > Not if implemented correctly. And if JS and Flash were typically used correctly I wouldn't be complaining in the first place. How often is AJAX actually implemented correctly? Certainly no more often than any other use of JS or Flash. And like grauzone said, it makes it far too difficult to actually get it right. I know from direct personal contact: the typical web developer is a lazy SOB. If it's hard for them to get something right (*IF* they even care about getting things right - and with web developers, that's rarely the case), then they're not going to bother to get it right. And surprise, surprise, most of them don't get it right. > See Gmail, for example. It uses AJAX all the time, and back and forward > buttons work as expected. I think Facebook does this too. > > And >> occasionally, they use it for animations. Animations what for? > > To show the user what just happened. If you just make some content appear > from nowhere, the user will not know what happened. If you make it appear > sliding from a particular point, then you are telling the user that > something is being created, and the trigger is that point. That's more myth than truth. Users don't need those kinds of animations to know what's going on. And for the users that are unknowledgeable enough to not know what's going on without animations, they're certainly *not* going to understand the animations either. All they're going to understand is "Oh, look, there's colors and shapes moving around". Seriously, I've sat and watched these people. Animations make FAR less difference, even with novices, than most people like to think. The only true purpose those sorts of animations serve is to *dazzle* people into opening their wallets. It's little more than a modern equivalent of those loud salesmen with greased hair and a tacky almost Liberace-esque suit, surrounded by banners and confetti, etc... Additionally, even in a case where an animation would aid in understanding, it only needs to be a split-second. Probably about 250ms max. Anything longer than that (which accounts for the vast majority of such animations on the web...as well as DVD) and interface feels unresponsive. Plus, particularly with JS, those animations are incredibly jerky. So even from a purely aesthetic point of view, they just look awful, and even unprofessional.