Page 1 of 5
Opinion poll.
Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 1:19 pm
by akimm
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).
Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 1:23 pm
by feyd
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.
Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 1:25 pm
by RobertGonzalez
AJAX is another tool in the web developers arsenal. We need HTML, CSS, some type of server-side app knowledge. We are also going to be needing to know XML more, and I think, as the web evolves, AJAX will become just another needed skillset.
Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 2:03 pm
by Luke
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.
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.
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.
Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 2:41 pm
by Maugrim_The_Reaper
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.
Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 2:45 pm
by feyd
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.
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.
Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 2:51 pm
by Burrito
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?
Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 2:53 pm
by RobertGonzalez
Dude, frappr sucks without Javascript. It is nasty, seriously.
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?
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.
Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 2:55 pm
by Ollie Saunders
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.
Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 3:09 pm
by Burrito
ole wrote:JavaScript has a bad rep which it legitimately earned....Admittedly JavaScript is a pretty shoddy implementation of ECMAScript
how/why did it 'legitimately' earn a bad rap? how/why is it a 'shoddy' implementation?
Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 3:29 pm
by Ollie Saunders
how/why did it 'legitimately' earn a bad rap?
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 is it a 'shoddy' implementation?
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.
Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 3:49 pm
by Burrito
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.
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: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 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:
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.
Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 5:14 pm
by Chris Corbyn
Maugrim_The_Reaper wrote:I've spent the last few months tinkering with Prototype, jQuery and Dojo to keep apace.
Never heard of Dojo, I'll have to look it up thanks
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.
Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 6:28 pm
by s.dot
I voted no.
I view javascript as a convenience to the end user. Not a necessity.
Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 7:01 pm
by nickvd
scottayy wrote:I voted no.
I view javascript as a convenience to the end user. Not a necessity.
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.
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?