Opinion poll.
Moderator: General Moderators
- akimm
- Forum Contributor
- Posts: 460
- Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 10:50 am
- Location: Ypsilanti Michigan, formally Clipsburgh
Opinion poll.
Please state why you think it is, or is not, because i'm very much on the fence, and would like some professional assistance, as to what I should do.
PS: I understand AJAX isn't new, just a new way to use javascript(semi new at least).
PS: I understand AJAX isn't new, just a new way to use javascript(semi new at least).
- RobertGonzalez
- Site Administrator
- Posts: 14293
- Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2003 6:04 pm
- Location: Fremont, CA, USA
I don't think javascript will ever be necessary, but if you are doing web development professionally, you need to keep up with the game. People won't pay a developer to do what people were doing 4 or 5 years ago.
I disagree. Sometimes you have to choose between evils.. for example, http://www.frappr.com. This site would be useless without javascript. It's main point is to display members on a javascript map. They could have chosen flash, but then you have to have flash enabled. In this case, I think it's fine to require javascript.feyd wrote:Only if you need to write Ajax enabled applications, however I would like to firmly recommend that you should never require the Ajax functionality to experience the site. If it does, you're possibly in for some fun with users.
- Maugrim_The_Reaper
- DevNet Master
- Posts: 2704
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 5:43 am
- Location: Ireland
AJAX is a must. Ninja put it best - if you don't know AJAX, or are not familiar with the various javascript and DHTML libraries then you're only limited what you're capable of in a job. I've spent the last few months tinkering with Prototype, jQuery and Dojo to keep apace. AJAX is an interesting area since you'll be forced into brushing up on Javascript or learning it if you haven't already. JS cannot be passed off as optional in a web developer's repertoire anymore...
I think feyd's point was probably targeted to those for whom AJAX without a degradation option simply blocks access to a site's content. Personally I'm starting a personal hobby project which requires AJAX. It makes huge sense in a certain category of applications...cough....games....cough.
I think feyd's point was probably targeted to those for whom AJAX without a degradation option simply blocks access to a site's content. Personally I'm starting a personal hobby project which requires AJAX. It makes huge sense in a certain category of applications...cough....games....cough.
- feyd
- Neighborhood Spidermoddy
- Posts: 31559
- Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 3:24 pm
- Location: Bothell, Washington, USA
It could be done entirely without Javascript. It would require more work, but in the end, it would be more accessible to more people. But it does depend on the demographics. There are few instances that I've seen where Javascript, let alone Ajax are required. Helpful and time saving, sure, but I'm not talking about them in those terms; purely in accessibility terms.The Ninja Space Goat wrote:I disagree. Sometimes you have to choose between evils.. for example, http://www.frappr.com. This site would be useless without javascript. It's main point is to display members on a javascript map. They could have chosen flash, but then you have to have flash enabled. In this case, I think it's fine to require javascript.
- RobertGonzalez
- Site Administrator
- Posts: 14293
- Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2003 6:04 pm
- Location: Fremont, CA, USA
Dude, frappr sucks without Javascript. It is nasty, seriously.
I think most fears stems back from JS being a client side utility that does stuff on the client. It may go way back to the days of the great cookie scare, but I would guess it has something to do with people being feaked out about things happening on their machine because a website deep in cyberland wanted it to happen that way.Burrito wrote:I don't understand people's fear of JS....it seems totally unfounded to me. What is it about JS that pushes people off? Is it just that it's something new and unknown to them? Is it that it can be someone erratic in different browsers? What is it that scares them away?
- Ollie Saunders
- DevNet Master
- Posts: 3179
- Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 6:01 pm
- Location: UK
JavaScript has a bad rep which it legitimately earned. Remember both JavaScript and ActionScript are implementations of ECMAScript. ECMAScript is in my opinion a superb language, it's pretty weird and quite alien to some but very flexible and powerful and it has a nice syntax, much nicer than PHP. Admittedly JavaScript is a pretty shoddy implementation of ECMAScript but the frameworks such as prototype have made a dramatic improvement on that.
AJAX is important. I don't think it can be ignored. Any good developer should be conversant in AJAX (not me yet, I've only tickered) but I don't expect every new website to use AJAX, ever. Don't forget about XUL either. I really want to get into XUL at some point, it sounds to me like a brilliant multi-platform er..platform for writing applications that can exist as much on the server or as much on the client as you wish.
AJAX is important. I don't think it can be ignored. Any good developer should be conversant in AJAX (not me yet, I've only tickered) but I don't expect every new website to use AJAX, ever. Don't forget about XUL either. I really want to get into XUL at some point, it sounds to me like a brilliant multi-platform er..platform for writing applications that can exist as much on the server or as much on the client as you wish.
- Ollie Saunders
- DevNet Master
- Posts: 3179
- Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 6:01 pm
- Location: UK
People writing terrible code because they have no idea how to use it. Such as the javascript:: pseudo protocol, overuse of eval, defining globals implicitly by omitting 'var', there are many others. And people abusing the features of the language to create web monstrosities where nothing does what you expect and stupid flashy things follow you around. I particularly hate Tom's Hardware Guide now that they have decided to use JS to put 'pop-up on hover' links in the middle of articles. I disable JS when I want to look at that site.how/why did it 'legitimately' earn a bad rap?
Just the number of differences between the IE and standard implementations. The fact that you need quite a substantial layer of abstraction before you can write anything in the slightest bit cross-browser. Microsoft completely bastardized the whole thing. FireFox's implementation is superb.how/why is it a 'shoddy' implementation?
but you can hardly blame the language itself for people using or 'mis-using' it. It's also not fair to paint a negative picture of it based on people's implementation of it...flashy or not. I agree that there is a lot of poorly written javascript code, but I've seen some horrendous php code as well.ole wrote:People writing terrible code because they have no idea how to use it. Such as the javascript:: pseudo protocol, overuse of eval, defining globals implicitly by omitting 'var', there are many others. And people abusing the features of the language to create web monstrosities where nothing does what you expect and stupid flashy things follow you around. I particularly hate Tom's Hardware Guide now that they have decided to use JS to put 'pop-up on hover' links in the middle of articles. I disable JS when I want to look at that site.
while I agree that the cross browser (standardization...or lack thereof), is frustrating, I still don't think it's fair to peg javascript as 'shoddy'. Fingers need to be pointed at browser developers and even there, I wouldn't point too hard....here's why:ole wrote:Just the number of differences between the IE and standard implementations. The fact that you need quite a substantial layer of abstraction before you can write anything in the slightest bit cross-browser. Microsoft completely bastardized the whole thing. FireFox's implementation is superb.
while IE has their own way of doing things, a lot of those things are revolutionary to the whole internet browsing experience. As far as I know (and I could very well be wrong), IE introduced the 'display' property in CSS which is now a must use tool to have in your back pocket for DHTML...I remember the days of 'visibility'...yuck! I DO know for a fact that MS introduced the XMLHttp object so this thread wouldn't even be happening had that not happend. I don't want this to turn into a IE flamewar so I'll leave it at that and get back on topic.
I asked the question of why people were afraid to learn javascript and you responded indicating that it's a sub-par language and their fears could therefore be justified. So far I don't see any concrete examples / reasons as to why it is sub-par. The examples you've provided are the fact that it's being poorly used, but they have no bearing on the language itself.
- Chris Corbyn
- Breakbeat Nuttzer
- Posts: 13098
- Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2004 7:57 am
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
Never heard of Dojo, I'll have to look it up thanksMaugrim_The_Reaper wrote:I've spent the last few months tinkering with Prototype, jQuery and Dojo to keep apace.
I agree with the fact it's always a good thing to increase the size of your skillset. You only need to search on Monster jobs or such to see how many job specs require things like AJAX. I'm currently learning java (and loving it) for the same sort of reasons as much as I'm doing it because I enjoy self-teaching.
I voted no.
I view javascript as a convenience to the end user. Not a necessity.
I view javascript as a convenience to the end user. Not a necessity.
Set Search Time - A google chrome extension. When you search only results from the past year (or set time period) are displayed. Helps tremendously when using new technologies to avoid outdated results.
-
nickvd
- DevNet Resident
- Posts: 1027
- Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 5:27 pm
- Location: Southern Ontario
- Contact:
98% of the time I'll agree with you, and 99% of the "ajax" that I write is degradable, and will work with or without javascript.scottayy wrote:I voted no.
I view javascript as a convenience to the end user. Not a necessity.
There ARE times when javascript is required due to the purpose of the page, for example: my CMS system uses FCKeditor for it's wysiwyg editor component. While I can make the system work without javascript, it would turn it into a very plain jane textarea without any wysiwyg'ness, and therefore defeat any purpose behind the system.
In situations such as this, I feel that it is not only appropriate, but pretty much required to force javascript to be turned on.
Thoughts?