Now that you can run a horribly inefficient, buggy, and badly programmed operating system from right within your browser, imagine all the new possibilities for web-appist-coders!
>>2 They actually believe that if the script fails, and it does not affect your OS or binaries, it is safe, reliable, and "working as intended" for it to be within performance.
>>4 So-Sorry. Just trying to help. Sorry to be a party pooper, it's all I do these days.
>>5 More like recreated a VM for a web browser only OS, which is still Planned Obsolesce. How will they ever run their torrents then? On the ECMASrrent script? What about their video streaming? On <video>?
>>7 Ok, what good use do you see for all this Javashit? Why are companies investing in this shit? Why does runtimejs even exist? Explain it all.
Name:
Anonymous2014-06-29 21:42
>>9 That's not what >>7 is aiming at. You wrote planned obsolescetwice. Grab a dictionary before you make a post here, little shitskin.
Name:
Anonymous2014-06-29 21:51
>>1 That sounds pretty redundant considering Java already exists and does everything provided there and ore.
Name:
Anonymous2014-06-29 22:02
>>9 Imagine a world where programmers only need to know one programming language. You use it to write your kernel, your drivers, your native applications, and even your web applications. In fact, because of this, web applications are just native applications! Their backend is written in this universal language, as well as their front end. Javascript could be the language to make this happen.
They actually believe that if the script fails, and it does not affect your OS or binaries, it is safe, reliable, and "working as intended" for it to be within performance.
What is wrong with that?
Name:
Anonymous2014-06-29 22:23
JavaScript is cool and me and all my bros got six figure jobs after graduating hacker school.
*punches your nerd face with my baller as fuck Ruby on Rails Spring 2014 Maker University class ring*
Name:
Anonymous2014-06-29 22:30
>>14 It's redefining safe and reliable in a way that is devoid of meaning. Of course a sandboxed failing script won't affect the outer environment, but in the end, you are just passing the difficulty to that environment because you require it in order to run.
I hate doublepost, but there's another, even worse part that didn't come to my mind: The more successful runtime.js becomes, the more devoid of meaning this safe and reliable phrase is. As an operating system, the idea is to move as much as possible into Javashitland, but as soon as you do that, your security gains are for naught. Sure, everything in the outer layer is secure, but there isn't anything in the outer layer anymore.
That is a bad idea, because non-power of two values waste bits -> waster transistors.
Name:
Anonymous2014-06-30 12:48
Some complex instruction set computers (CISC) have long microword lengths. For example, the Nanodata QM-1 computer has a 360 bit nanoword and a 16 bit microword, the IBM-370/3033-S system has a 122 bit microword, and the Digital VAX 11-780 machine has a 98 bit microword.
Runtime.JS uses global non-blocking event loop to dispatch tasks for the whole system. Preemption is supported by design (and by V8), but haven't been implemented yet.
At least they're up front about their own irrelevance. I doubt it's intentional, though.
>>49 Javascript started with competition that did not yet exist, and made design compromises in order to get there first, and the price of those compromises still bites us in the ass on a daily basis 20 years later.
Your competition now is the most widely deployed programming language toolchain in the industry (yes, even more than C, because most people don't have compilers). Your would-be allies are four huge corporations with their own agendas and their own ideas for how to solve the problem.
You, my friend, are getting in a fistfight with a hurricane.
Name:
Anonymous2014-07-05 20:28
>>52 Lies, both Lisp and Shell scripts existed in a browser that was implementable as a client side script.
The problem was Netscape had other plans, and offered as a bundle first for commoners. Basically forcing people to change.
Don't you want to be that change, or do you what JS to rot your applications?
Name:
Anonymous2014-07-05 21:07
>>53 You've convinced me. I want to force change. I will use the power of my multi-billion dollar company that makes one of the leading web browsers to force change on the world.
If Lisp is so good, why did it lost every single battle since 1958? First to Fortran, then to Algol, then to C, then to Java, now to JavaScript. It is fucking 56 years already!!!
>>47 Why don't you just use a Lisp-to-ECMAScript transpiler like Parenscript or Sibilant. I thought writing your own implementation of Lisp atop something else was a rite of passage for Lisp weenies, anyway.
I've always felt that someone should have created a standardized bytecode virtual machine that could interact with the DOM and issue HTTP requests, but thanks to Sun this never happened and it's now too late to go back and make one.
Name:
Anonymous2014-07-06 10:11
>>66 Look at the time it would have been made in and be glad; it would have become Java-style forced OO shit.
Name:
Anonymous2014-07-06 12:52
>>67 But it's still shit: everything's mutable and there is no side effects control.
Name:
Anonymous2014-07-07 3:48
>>67 The JVM is a bad example because it was clearly designed with only Java in mind. There is a lot you can do with just a JVM but a better example would probably be the CLR, since it was designed from the start with the intent to host more than just one language.
>>68 A language VM is at the wrong level to be enforcing these kinds of things.
Also, before someone says something to that effect - "Everyone just use language X" is not a solution. It's the same sort of thinking that gives us, "Everyone just use JavaScript". If you want to solve problems by mandating a language you should expect that the language that is chosen will be one you personally don't like.