Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
On 4/29/13 9:36 AM, Michael Sokolov wrote: > Browsers have always represented an impoverished development environment > targeted to the broadest possible audience. Unlike more traditional > apps (desktop, server), they are constrained by having to run > everywhere, on every device, with a single programming language (ok, > there used to be VB Script, and of course plugins). Is it any wonder > that the choice of tools is limited there? If ever there was a crowd that I'd expect to embrace constraints, it's XML. Somehow, though, we only like our own kind of constraints, and others aren't acceptable. JavaScript, scorned child of the Web, has become a superpower: <http://programming.oreilly.com/2013/04/will-javascript-take-over-the-programming-world.html> Obviously, I have bias there - the long-term story of my time at O'Reilly is starting in XML and shifting to JavaScript (with some bumps and starts). However, even those of you who loathe JavaScript may well be compiling to it in the near future. JavaScript actually can be a great tool for working with XML - once you learn from jQuery that CSS selectors are a much better way to address content than DOM-walking. More on that Wednesday. > The strange thing (as Jirka pointed out) is that XML *was already in the > browser*. Unlike Flash, say, it didn't have to fight for its place > there. It had it -- and lost it. Maybe for the reasons Jirka points > out, I don't know. Maybe because nobody cared much about coding in > javascript back then when all it was good for was image rollovers and > the other kinds of toy effects you could achieve with "dynamic html" Ajax gave developers the opportunity to integrate XML with all of that, and the vast majority of folks still chose to dodge XML. Thanks, -- Simon St.Laurent http://simonstl.com/
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] |
