Comment by no_wizard
1 day ago
I have always wondered what the web would be like if we added the scripting language later and only solidified CSS and HTML for the first 15 years or so.
I wonder if things would actually be better overall. I’m not going to argue that having a scripting language for the web was a mistake, it definitely isn’t on the whole, but I think having it come at a more mature point for the web might have helped stave off a lot of really bad decisions
I think what would have happened if the web didn't have scripting languages was that you would be forced to download java applets... which now can also run on javascript/wasm coming full circle.
Also, java's dominance I guess was the reason that javascript is named after inspiration of java.
What you are asking for are static pages which already exists and most people do use static pages due to it being very easy to deploy on github pages etc. , though I wonder we would've way more abundance of static pages as compared to non static pages, like there are some pages which could've been static but they aren't.
Though I still think the difference would've existed & it could've been net positive IDK, I just like to go create websites as apps which can be booted on any pc,device without worrying about anything, installing and running it would likely require a setup and it would've been a bigger hassle as well.
And well noone's stopping you from doing it right now. There's gopher and gemini if you are interested.
A static page has nothing to do at all with the discussion.
There’s nothing preventing me from adding globs of nightmare JavaScript to my static website to try and chase engagement.
What’s stopping the people making static pages is not technical, it’s cultural.
Kind of agree, maybe static pages wasn't the right word but rather static pages without js /minimal js that anybody can read and vet unlike those minified js that we get from frameworks...
> Also, java's dominance I guess was the reason that javascript is named after inspiration of java.
Very loosely, was named that was as an marketing ploy as Java was the new language at the time.
JavaScript is actually ECMAScript or a v.close direlect of. Originally it was called Mocha, and then relabeled to LiveScript and during the NetScape / Sun Microsystems thing, changed itself to JavaScript and Oracle carried it on from there.
It has some quite interesting history. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JavaScript#History
We could look at the print world for reference.
Everything is perfectly static and linear, and instead of popups we get full-page ads, double-full-page ads sometimes, and ad inserts in the rest of the pages, with stealth marketing for the content left.
The fundamental issue is not technology IMHO. Scripting can make it worse, but it wouldn't have been great in the first place.
Flash would still be around I suspect.
I dunno, I think it was a net negative by a large margin. 1) html only Gmail shows that pretty advanced, well made apps are possible without scripting; 2) There are very few web apps that without JavaScript wouldn't just be implemented as native without loss of convenience; 3) OTOH for simple apps and sites JavaScript adds inconvenience (non standard links breaking browser features etc), security risks, compatibility issues, massive bloat and tracking.
Nothing like 3 paragraphs of text that requires downloading 2 megabytes of crap, runs code from 20 sketchy looking domains, takes 15 seconds to load, cannot be linked to, and demands you upgrade your browser. As a consolation you can have slightly slower maps in browser instead of downloading an app, once.
I think web scripting is probably THE worst technology ever invented in the IT field. "If I ruled the world", a full ban would be better than its current state; or some AMA on steroids (+Jones act) making JavaScript developers extremely rare and well paid, so that it was limited to the best (as determined by the market) uses with better quality.
You can't think about alternate web evolution without considering (1) the early browser wars (specifically Netscape vs IE) & (2) the need to decouple data transfer and re-rendering that led to AJAX (for network and compute performance reasons).
Folks forget that before js was front-end frameworks and libaries, it was enabling (as in, making impossible possible) async data requests and page updates without requiring a full round-trip and repaint.
It's difficult to conceptualize a present where that need was instead fully served by HTML+CSS, sans executable code sandbox.
What, ~2000 IE instead pushes for some direct linking of HTML with a async update-able data model behind the scenes? How are the two linked together? And how do developers control that?
You're correct that the main thing enabled by JS is partial updates, but the fact that it relies on JS is IMO itself in large part due to path dependent evolution (i.e. JS was there and could be used for that, so that's what we standardized on).
Imagine instead if HTML evolved more in the direction of enabling this exact scenario out of the box. So that e.g. you could declaratively mark a button or a link as triggering a request that updates only part of the page. DOM diffs implemented directly by the browser etc.
2 replies →
I wrote JavaScript before libraries, I remember when prototype.js came out and was a cool new thing and actually useful after "client side validation and snowflakes chasing mouse cursor" era. I think there was a short period when it was a positive development.
It seemed so at the time but I think it didn't work out... Why is interesting to speculate about... My pet theory that convenient frameworks lowering the barriers were part of the problem.
I think if at it's time JavaScript went the way of java applets and ActiveX controls (and yes I understand part of the reason these could be driven out is availability of JavaScript), web would be in a much better shape right now. 90% of the apps (banking, email, forums, travel, etc) and 100% of the pages would just be plain better. For the remainder you'd just install an app, something they nag you about anyway.
We would have ended up with Flash and then Chrome, just as we did. Client-side programming is essential to creating certain experiences, and with all great powers comes the extractive shit, etc. This is typically where economists will claim the free market is producing an efficient outcome; regulation would be the only preventative, and that’s anathema to tech libertarians.
The modern web has successfully liberated applications from mostly vendor locked OS environments into mostly agnostic browser environments. I think this has been a good thing.
Otherwise, with just CSS and HTML, you'd have a web strictly dedicated to publishing. A read only experience curated by those who are willing to invest the time and tooling into being a publisher.
Even then with the advent of RSS and other data exchange formats it's arguable we didn't even need that part of the web. It would be far better for publishing to deliver headlines and summaries via RSS and then allow me to purchase full content and issues digitally.
I think the bigger complication in the creation of the web was the complete lack of payment systems and user trust in entering their payment information into these platforms. So only the large well moneyed entities like advertisers were willing to absorb that risk and built out the platform. Instead of us conveniently and safely paying creators for content we now have aggressive advertisers who litter the web so publishers can shake pennies out of the CPM tree.
TCL was to be javascript but didn't happen. Google offered to sell Google to Yahoo and AltaVista $1m for Google, but didn't happen.
I wish to think all these things exist in a alternative universe and we've just not constructed the time-portal yet.
socialism. that's what we're talking about. No one every said, "Should we try to make the internet a publish good?"