On 11/02/2011 14:35, Peter van der Zee wrote:
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 3:24 PM, Adrian Olaru agol...@gmail.com
mailto:agol...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm just wondering, why don't we have by now a Lua alternative to
JavaScript in the browsers?
Shouldn't the question by why do we need an
On 11/02/2011 14:54, Dmitry A. Soshnikov wrote:
On 11.02.2011 17:51, Chris Heilmann wrote:
On 11/02/2011 14:35, Peter van der Zee wrote:
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 3:24 PM, Adrian Olaru agol...@gmail.com
mailto:agol...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm just wondering, why don't we have by now a Lua
On 11/02/2011 15:18, Adrian Olaru wrote:
Right now, JavaScript is the way to go. My opinion is that programmers
love having more choices. Like on the server we are using Python Ruby
or even JavaScript nowadays. But what we've got on the client? Only
JavaScript. We had a lot of opportunities to
Well written, robust code that uses appropriate feature detection and
fall back strategies is not difficult to write.
That's why the web is full of that, right? If you write for yourself or
an app for your hairdresser, yes. If you write in a company decisions
are made by committee, not
Some cheese with that whine? All the big libraries are open source and
very much in use. If you really are that gifted and care about what
people use on the web, file bugs and fix these oh so poorly written
libraries.
I see comments like this often, but this is easier said than done and
I
On 31/01/2011 00:10, Poetro wrote:
This is not the problem of the language, but the interpretation and
adding scripts to the web page, in case of browser usage. If there
could be only one JavaScript tag on the page, and that could load the
external scripts, it would be more secure IMHO. Then
On 15/12/2010 06:42, Luke Smith wrote:
I'm Luke Smith (ls_n), a YUI core developer.
I'm very interested in the process of learning, teaching, and
presenting about JavaScript/web development (and in general, I
suppose). These are very interesting times wrt JavaScript and web
development.
