Python Webkit DOM Bindings
gnu.org
gnu.org
This is just flamebait. Javascript is just as capable as python, and these days, it's a lot faster too. Sure it has some boring idiosyncrasies, but so has python (one line lambdas are gonna be fun with heavily evented code such as DOM code).
There is room for everything in this world of technology, and i like the idea of this project, but please remove those corrosive and pointless statements from the main project page ..
EDIT : Well, downvoters ? Do you disagree with anything i said ? Because you are particularly silent at the moment, i can't see any of your replies. I stand by anything i said, calling javascript an awkward and obtuse language is flamebait, and implies a very shortsighted view of the technology the very individuals working on the project should know well. If you disagree with me, at least have the courtesy to explain why
I've programmed JavaScript long enough and on large enough codebases to know that JavaScript leaves much be desired.
Problems:
1) It's a language that has stood still since November 2000 as far as
standards go.
2) No sane package system (see #1) *everybody invents their own*
3) Expression problem, altering prototypes is ridiculously powerful,
but it's monkey-patching (see #1)
4) Browser environment is a ball-and-chain for the language's evolution (see #1)
5) Lack of rich datatypes (no sets) (see #1)
6) Object identity based equality (see #1)
7) Little facility to define new rich datatypes (see #1)
But to say that JavaScript is an especially capable PL is, to me at least, a bit of joke- it was clearly designed to run in a very limited scope, in the browser. And remember, this is critique from someone that has used JavaScript in large UI projects day in and day out since 2005 (before jQuery!).
All your other points are right on, but i feel that most are more the result of the history and constraints of javascript than anything else.
#3 is a language problem but is also the most arguable of your points. Ruby allows monkey patches and is one of the most appreciated languages in existence today. Also viable approachs to give the power of monkey patching without the drawbacks are just being thought today. Protocols in clojure looks good but still need the appreciation of time i'd say.
#6 is stupid i agree
Every other point are more the result of the history, and most importantly of the use case of javascript: - No sane package system sucks but a package system is hard to get right in a file based browser environnement. - Browser environnement, well yes, but that's precisely what we are talking about, you can't really say it's a problem, it's the very reason we're using javascript in the first place - Lack of rich datatypes is really bad. The lack of sets, but also of propers hash maps sucks. But more generally javascript lacks a proper standard library. Something that python definitely has. But it's also definitely harder to get right in a browser environnement, when you have got to ensure support from every browser on every platform.
But anyway, thanks for a proper critique of javascript.
I wrote some more about this here:
http://finger-tree.blogspot.com/2010/09/sets-in-javascript.h...
And here is a library that offers sets in JS:
http://github.com/PeterScott/simplesets-nodejs
If you're using Node.js, you can get it with npm. It could be adapted to the browser pretty easily. This is what I use, and it makes my life so much easier.
No, they're actively being used: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb383977.aspx
That used to be true, but ECMA-262 5th edition was just published in December, 2009: http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecm...
And the next version is under active develpment; it will likely address many of your other points.
Here are a couple I can think of :
* no namespaces and no packaging system
* conversion between types (1+"5"?)
* object prototypes are unusual
* ignoring extra function arguments
* if ( a=b ) will assign a the value of b, in Python it's a syntax error
* implicit semicolons inserted in place of linebreaks
* inconsistent type conversion -- as in a switch statement
* cannot use interger keys in dictionaries-----
I like having most of the conveniences of python, like list comprehensions, and it has a better syntax than javascript (i hate javascript syntax).
Also, coffeescript has some things that python hasn't, like a sane syntax for functions and lambdas, and some more (string interpolation is really neat when you're dealing with mostly text)
It does make things harder for debugging though, but i consider it a fair tradeoff.
I still use it, though, because it's just so much nicer than JavaScript in every other way.
I'd love to see some data on this point.
You can see it's on average 7 times faster than CPython. You can check with pypy (which is the fastest python implementation at the moment), it's basically the same deal.
Not only that, but the benchmark where CPython blows Javascript out of the water, uses gmpy, where Javascript uses a native javascript implementation. But python in the browser probably wouldn't have access to gmpy, unless javascript has access to a similar binding
I've been using Pyjamas a lot actually. It works out good because of caching, but it's pretty heavy handed otherwise. The nice thing is being able to program everything in Python, pyjamas on the client and python stuff with mod_wsgi or mod_python on the server side (or Django, or whatever)
Mozilla's JS Guide is surprisingly well hidden, a majority of JavaScript tutorials are shockingly inadequate: there's a lot of potential there.
JS is neither awkward nor obtuse. Its shortcomings are exaggerated while its beauty is still a secret to many; that sucks.
There are some examples of this happening already, HotRuby for instance.
I would hope that the leadership of such a project would at least demonstrate some kind of understanding of the language binding they wish to replace, objectively recognizing its contributions and shortcomings, with the professionalism to resist resorting to phrases like "world's most awkward or obtuse language".
What would be cool is if browser vendors implemented client side VMs with a standard bytecode. Then new languages could be developed and delivered over time.
That being said, there's definitely room for competition. PyXPCOM is far from a joy to work with.
A page of javascript looks like someone dropped a box of scrabble tiles.
This is just me, a bad programmer who hasn't gone to college yet, who only knows one language well enough to make anything useful, and who has resisted learning javascript all this time. I knew someone would do something like this eventually, and now they have. And now I shall make something truly beautiful.
Python is a great, powerful and awesome language.
Birds of a feather flock together. I hope EVERY rendering engine gets Python support.