4chan archive /g/ (index)
similar threads
2012-10-02 12:55 28002667 Anonymous (0825.image5[1].png 313x216 11kB)
So what does /g/ think of TypeScript? http://www.typescriptlang.org/Playground/
A superset of javascript that compiles to readable javascript with static typing and classes and shit.
4 min later 28002705 Anonymous
bump
8 min later 28002741 Anonymous
I'm sure someone on /g/ has an opinion on this. maybe no one on /g/ actually programs...
11 min later 28002771 Anonymous
>>28002667
>statically-typed JavaScript
Hmm...I've heard of something like this, back in the day. I think it was called...Lava? No...that's not quite right. Hava? No...maybe Java? Fuck I can't remember...
12 min later 28002787 Anonymous
>>28002741
You want an Opinion? Here you go.
It's another fucking toy language that is never going to become popular, and you'd have to be a moron to invest in it.
14 min later 28002798 Anonymous
>>28002771
>statically typed
>so it must be Java!
Please leave.
18 min later 28002853 Anonymous
So it's something like CoffeeScript?
If so, I'll stick with CoffeeScript. Web standards and microsoft don't belong in the same sentence.
21 min later 28002887 Anonymous
>>28002771
you can't possibly be that retarded can you? if you are, please kill yourself.
24 min later 28002910 Anonymous
>>28002853
yeah, but there's some differences. I'm not familiar enough to go into detail about what they are though.
>Web standards and microsoft don't belong in the same sentence.
it's not a web standard, everything compiles to compliant ECMAScript 5. Also it's a completely open spec and everything is open source under the apache licence.
36 min later 28003060 Anonymous
bump
46 min later 28003186 Anonymous
Looks like a shitty version of Coffeescript.
And it's from Microsoft.
1 hours later 28003424 Anonymous
>>28002798
Wow nice strawman argument. Did I fucking say that every statically typed language is like Java? No. I said statically typed JavaScript is like Java. If you knew any history you'd realize why: JavaScript was designed to be able to interact with Java and was given a Java-like syntax, but also operates at a higher level and with a loose type system. If you bring JavaScript down to the Java level of typing, then you'd just end up with Java.
1 hours later 28003442 Anonymous
Considered harmful.
1 hours later 28003470 Anonymous
>>28003424
Java doesn't have closures. No first class functions. No prototypical inheritance.
Just admit it. You're retarded.
1 hours later 28003480 Anonymous
>>28003424
You're a fucking retard.
1 hours later 28003485 Anonymous
>>28003470
>>28003480
I'm retarded.
1 hours later 28003489 Look at my massive
Javascript is the devil and client-side scripting is terrible design.
1 hours later 28003501 Anonymous
>>28003489
How so??
1 hours later 28003514 Anonymous
>>28003442
>>28003470
Did I fucking say it was exactly like Java? No. It's basically Java with some nice extra features that Java should have but doesn't. So what? We have a ton of languages that basically add these features to Java already. We don't need another one.
1 hours later 28003527 Anonymous
>Did I fucking say Java was exactly like C? No. It's basically C with some nice extra features that C should have but doesn't. So what? We have a ton of languages that basically add these features to C already. We don't need another one.
You are this retarded.jpg
1 hours later 28003533 Anonymous
>>28003489
I never thought about it, but I'm really inclined to agree.
Not sure about the devil part though.
1 hours later 28003554 愛してるさわこ (ohlawdy.png 640x394 11kB)
>>28003489
>That feel when browsers use javascript for configuration and even UI.
Its never going away.
1 hours later 28003578 Anonymous
>>28003527
Wow what a fucking retarded analogy. C is just syntactical sugar on top of assembly. It is nothing like Java.
Java and JavaScript on the other hand can both be compiled to intermediate code and executed by a virtual machine runtime environment, although JavaScript is more often interpreted. They are both completely object-based, with some minor differences (classes vs. prototypes) which are a direct consequence of the type system that JavaScript is using. The only really main difference is thus the type system. If you give JavaScript the Java type system, you end up with pretty much Java but with first class functions and closures.
Now GTFO with your nonsense.
1 hours later 28003583 Anonymous
>>28003578
>C is just syntactical sugar on top of assembly.
Well...
1 hours later 28003596 Anonymous
>>28003489
>client-side scripting is terrible design
full retard
1 hours later 28003603 Anonymous
>>28003578
>Wow what a fucking retarded analogy.
THATS THE POINT.
1 hours later 28003609 Look at my massive
>>28003501
Modern browsers suck because of all the hoops we have to jump through to provide artfag website designers with safe, turing-complete machines that effectively are all about allowing remote execution of whatever poorly-written program the site's designers think they need.
All the problems of the modern internet are related to client-side scripting, and we just don't need to to create beautiful websites.
>>28003533
I say that Javascript is the devil because it's seductively available. Your site is just waiting to be over-engineered with flying buttons and fade-in effects...
1 hours later 28003610 Anonymous
>>28003489
Client-side scripting is going away anyway. In the near future we are just going to have apps (which may be HTML5/JavaScript based anyhow so it's not a big transition), and web servers would be nothing more than API endpoints. Are you opposed to this design too?
1 hours later 28003627 Look at my massive
>>28003596
Browser abuser detected.
If your site doesn't work with NoScript turned on then you're everything that's wrong.
1 hours later 28003632 Anonymous
>>28003609
I want to believe...
No seriously, I fucking hate clientside scripting as well. It would be great if I could be assured I'd only ever need to do server side programming.
1 hours later 28003634 Anonymous
>>28003609
I dont like Javascript, but:
>and we just don't need to to create beautiful websites.
What's wrong with wanting the internet to look nice?
1 hours later 28003646 Look at my massive
>>28003610
I don't see any benefit to that form of design and many down-sides.
1 hours later 28003660 Look at my massive
>>28003634
just don't need it to*
The internet can look great without client-side scripting.
1 hours later 28003669 Anonymous
>>28003186
>Looks like a shitty version of Coffeescript.
one benefit over coffeescript is it works with all existing javascrit code, due to being a superset of javascript. handy no?
1 hours later 28003672 Anonymous
>>28003609
No, Johnson, you are not opposed to client-side scripting. You are opposed to the unclean separation between data and presentation. In a well-designed website, there's going to be a rich JavaScript frontend that users can access, but that frontend is accessing the web servers using REST/SOAP, through a well defined API to get data. And good websites make this API known, so that you can substitute their JavaScript frontend with something else, and be able to browse the same data. The client-side scripting is just a default viewer that is supplied with the site, and is entirely optional.
What you are opposed to is when developers do not cleanly separate the data API and their JavaScript client, thus making it difficult to grab the data and bypass the JavaScript. That isn't a problem with client-side scripting per se. It's a problem with shitty web designers.
1 hours later 28003673 Anonymous
>>28003646
Well do you at least think it's better than the current model?
Internet browsers are too complex nowadays.
1 hours later 28003678 Anonymous
>>28003660
>The internet can look great without client-side scripting.
Just not as good.
1 hours later 28003684 Anonymous
>>28003660
Oh, okay fair enough. I agree with that for the most part.
1 hours later 28003694 Anonymous
>>28003672
>why I'm not a web developer
Why can't they make this stuff simple?
1 hours later 28003705 Anonymous
>>28003673
Bro, it IS the current model. Designers target web browsers as their platform, not operating systems; the application is the website.
1 hours later 28003722 Anonymous
>that feel when within the next few generations nobody will be able to make new operating systems and the world of technology will stagnate
1 hours later 28003727 Look at my massive
>>28003673
They both seem like terrible models. The primary concern with "cloud-style" is privacy and user freedom, which are as terrible as awful bloated design in a different way.
>>28003672
Quite well put.
And I basically don't trust anybody to use client-side scripting correctly, because nobody does.
1 hours later 28003747 Anonymous
>>28003424
actually, the only thing javascript took from java is the name, to make it more popular
1 hours later 28003754 Anonymous
>>28003727
>And I basically don't trust anybody to use client-side scripting correctly, because nobody does.
Why do you care how other people code their site? 99% of all programming isn't done "properly".
1 hours later 28003766 Look at my massive
>>28003678
People used to say the same thing about animated .gifs ans the marquee tag.
Your javascript bunk is becoming passe.
1 hours later 28003767 Anonymous
>>28003424
forgot to mention that you are fucking moron spewing nonsense
1 hours later 28003770 Anonymous
You guys are making me feel guilty for learning javascript. I have Javascript Patterns and Javascript The Good Parts on my reading list.
1 hours later 28003784 Anonymous
>>28003770
>Javascript The Good Parts
The title of that book makes me intensely curious.
1 hours later 28003799 Anonymous
>>28003514
javascript is NOTHING like java. it only shares some of its syntax, but that is true for pretty much all imperative languages, c, c++, c#, php whatever.
if anything, javascript is like lisp, even if the syntax differs
1 hours later 28003802 Anonymous
>>28003784
I'm reading it because it seems to be recommended by just about everyone.
1 hours later 28003806 Anonymous
I hate Javascript and it's very over used, but there are a few times where client-side scripting is the best option available.
Like securely transferring data over HTTP without having to pay for an SSL cert.
1 hours later 28003807 Look at my massive
>>28003754
>Why do you care how other people code their site?
Because badly written sites don't work properly or work slowly. Because turning off scripts for security, privacy and performance shouldn't break sites. Because trying to account for bad programmers are why modern browsers suck.
1 hours later 28003825 Anonymous
>>28003807
>Because turning off scripts for security, privacy and performance shouldn't break sites.
Something like 3% of users do this. No one wants to work extra for that few people.
1 hours later 28003842 Anonymous
>>28003825
The point he's trying to make is that people should have to "work extra" to support "that few people."
1 hours later 28003850 Anonymous
>>28003747
That's a common misconception, but it's not really the case.
See https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/JavaScript/Guide/JavaScript_Overview
>JavaScript and Java are similar in some ways but fundamentally different in some others. The JavaScript language resembles Java but does not have Java's static typing and strong type checking. JavaScript follows most Java expression syntax, naming conventions and basic control-flow constructs which was the reason why it was renamed from LiveScript to JavaScript.
>Through JavaScript's LiveConnect functionality, you can let Java and JavaScript code communicate with each other. From JavaScript, you can instantiate Java objects and access their public methods and fields. From Java, you can access JavaScript objects, properties, and methods.
1 hours later 28003857 Hupo
>>28003627
>If your site doesn't work with NoScript turned on then you're everything that's wrong.
If we're talking about rich web applications, then I'd say it's perfectly appropriate that they require JavaScript to function.
If we're talking about regular websites, then yes, I agree with you. You should be able to read and use them (at least with limited functionality) with no JavaScript whatsoever.
But even so, client-side scripting can massively enhance the user experience of websites. Take 4chan X for example - browsing 4chan without it is a fucking pain in the ass. And nowadays I find client-side scripting to be used way more for good than for bad - that's why I stopped using NoScript and got Ghostery instead to just block all those unneeded third-party scripts.
1 hours later 28003861 Look at my massive
>>28003825
Javascript on isn't the default. You should think of it was making your site and then working extra to add more for 97% of your visitors.
That is how an engineer/programmer or anybody else who understands principles of design thinks about web site design.
1 hours later 28003880 Anonymous
>>28003825
>>28003842
just because the majority of people do or do not do something doesn't mean its right, efficient, intelligent, ... etc.
people often behave like dumb sheep.
1 hours later 28003882 Anonymous
>>28003799
See >>28003850
From the very beginning, JavaScript was designed to look like and be interoperable with Java. It's only major departure is the type system.
1 hours later 28003896 Hupo
>>28003861
>Javascript on isn't the default.
...What fucking bizarro world do you live in? Every modern browser on the market today has JavaScript turned on by default, and I really doubt anyone turns JavaScript off globally in them - instead they use something like NoScript instead.
1 hours later 28003901 Anonymous
>>28003627
>If your site doesn't work with NoScript turned on then you're everything that's wrong.
>thinking gmail should work with NoScript
lel
1 hours later 28003910 Anonymous
>>28003896
>HURRRR
He means when making a website, it doesn't, by default, have Javascript.
Learn some reading comprehension.
1 hours later 28003917 Anonymous
>>28003901
>using email webapps
You download all emails for archival purposes in Adult world, kid.
1 hours later 28003924 Anonymous
>>28003901
>implying every site is gmail
lel
1 hours later 28003951 Anonymous
>>28003857
>browsing 4chan without it is a fucking pain in the ass
You have to be kidding me.. fucking kids these days.
1 hours later 28003957 Look at my massive
>>28003901
I don't think webmail needs javascript to function nicely.
1 hours later 28003961 Anonymous
>>28002667
>static typing
Sounds like shit. Use Coffeescript instead.
1 hours later 28003988 Anonymous
>>28003850
>The JavaScript language resembles Java but does not have Java's static typing and strong type checking. JavaScript follows most Java expression syntax, naming conventions and basic control-flow constructs which was the reason why it was renamed from LiveScript to JavaScript.
thats basically what i said, the languages share a syntax (or a subset), but so do most other imperative languages. neither javascript nor java established that syntax. if you continue to read the page you linked, you see that the differences they list far outweight the superficial similarities (syntax)
>Through JavaScript's LiveConnect functionality, you can let Java and JavaScript code communicate with each other. From JavaScript, you can instantiate Java objects and access their public methods and fields. From Java, you can access JavaScript objects, properties, and methods.
the same is possible for lots of other languages, e.g. you can instantiate java objects from c++ and vice versa.
1 hours later 28003994 Anonymous
>>28003948
I have read that page many times. All the differences on that page result either directly or indirectly from the differences in the type system between the two languages. That's my entire point: other than the type system, they are very, very much alike.
1 hours later 28004012 Anonymous
>>28003917
>for archival purposes
I've never had the need to on gmail. Most free cloud email would be the same.
>>28003924
>not every site uses javascript well so it should be gotten rid of lol!
>>28003957
and yet gmail is a shitzillion times nicer and more responsive with javascript.
1 hours later 28004014 Anonymous
>>28003896
What kinda bizarro world do you live in? Also that's what noscript does, well at least for me, I block globally and allow per site basis.
What is the most common attack vector against browsers today?
1 hours later 28004026 Anonymous
>>28003961
trying using existing javascript libraries with coffeescript.
type script is a javascript superset so all existing javascript libraries are already typescript libraries.
1 hours later 28004052 Hupo
>>28003951
No, you have to be kidding me. Either you've never used it yourself or you just don't use 4chan that much, but 4chan X enhances the functionality of this site by a metric shitton, and once you're used to it, using the site is much more awkward and slow in comparison.
Of course nowadays there's also the inline extension, but since we're talking about "working with NoScript" that's obviously out of the picture. "Vanilla" 4chan experience today is also much better than it used to be, but also requires JS to be enabled for that to actually be the case.
1 hours later 28004080 Anonymous
>>28004052
>No, you have to be kidding me. Either you've never used it yourself or you just don't use 4chan that much, but 4chan X enhances the functionality of this site by a metric shitton, and once you're used to it, using the site is much more awkward and slow in comparison.
No, not really. Disabling it also improved my battery life by forty minutes at least.
1 hours later 28004086 Hupo
>>28004014
>Also that's what noscript does, well at least for me, I block globally and allow per site basis.
Using NoScript != turning JavaScript off globally in the browser settings. Pretty much every browser has a setting for that in the options, but I really doubt anyone ever actually uses it.
And users of NoScript & co are a very small minority.
2 hours later 28004126 Anonymous
>>28004026
>trying using existing javascript libraries with coffeescript.
Just import them with require? I don't know why is that an issue, nor why is it a strong point for type script.
2 hours later 28004133 Hupo
>>28004080
>No, not really.
Then you either use the inline extension (which was not relevant for this comparison since the original comparison was "no JS enabled" vs "4chan X") or, as I said, don't use 4chan very much. Have fun with your manual refreshing and copypasting post numbers by hand to the reply box at the top of the page.
2 hours later 28004172 Anonymous
>>28004080
>No, not really. Disabling it also improved my battery life by forty minutes at least.
LOL.
>javascript uses battery life so it must be bad
argument of the century folks.
I think you'll find rendering the also page drains your battery, I guess HTML is bad too right?
2 hours later 28004188 Anonymous
>>28004172
I don't think you understand...
Using your computer drains your battery, so clearly computers are bad.
2 hours later 28004194 Anonymous
>>28004172
It drains battery doing unnecessary shit.
2 hours later 28004221 Anonymous (TsJyw.jpg 400x228 21kB)
>>28003994
there are far more differences than the type system:
- prototype-based vs. class-based
- functional aspects vs. completely imperative
- interpreted vs. (bytecode) compiled
- function scope vs block scope
here is what they have in common:
- a subset of the syntax (c-like)
- object-oriented
- a part of the name
the same is true for thousands of other languages (except the name part)
2 hours later 28004245 Anonymous (1344884852369.png 500x589 98kB)
EMBRACE EXTEND EXTINGUISH
FUCK INTEROPERABILITY
LOL >DOESN'T USE INTERNET EXPLORER AND MS WORD
CONFIRMED FOR MOTHER'S BASEMENT
2 hours later 28004246 Anonymous
>>28004221
i eat hamsters
2 hours later 28004255 Anonymous
>>28003994
A common misconception is that JavaScript is similar or closely related to Java. It is true that both have a C-like syntax, the C language being their most immediate common ancestor language. They are both object-oriented, typically sandboxed (when used inside a browser), and are widely used in client-side Web applications. In addition, JavaScript was designed with Java's syntax and standard library in mind. In particular, all Java keywords were reserved in original JavaScript, JavaScript's standard library follows Java's naming conventions, and JavaScript's Math and Date objects are based on classes from Java 1.0.[18]
JS had to "look like Java" only less so, [it had to] be Java's dumb kid brother or boy-hostage sidekick. Plus, I had to be done in ten days or something worse than JS would have happened
—Brendan Eich[80]
However, the similarities end there. Java has static typing; JavaScript's typing is dynamic (meaning a variable can hold an object of any type and cannot be restricted). JavaScript is weakly typed ('0.0000' == 0, 0 == "", false == "", etc.) while Java is more strongly typed. Java is loaded from compiled bytecode; JavaScript is loaded as human-readable source code. Java's objects are class-based; JavaScript's are prototype-based. JavaScript also has many functional programming features based on the Scheme language.
2 hours later 28004268 Anonymous
>>28004194
>unnecessary shit
>implying you find the 4chan extension completely useless.
that's more to do with not liking the extensions rather than the language they are written in. You of course are able to turn them all off.
plenty of people including myself find them useful.
2 hours later 28004288 Anonymous
>>28004245
>implying wizards use "wizards" to install software
2 hours later 28004289 Anonymous
I don't think anyone who did some serious programming in both Java and JavaScript would consider the languages to be alike.
2 hours later 28004305 Anonymous
>>28004245
>EMBRACE EXTEND EXTINGUISHFUCK INTEROPERABILITY
completely open spec
completely open source
compiles to standard compliment ECMAScript 5
2 hours later 28004321 Anonymous
>>28004288
>implying otherwise
you must get so much heterosex
2 hours later 28004324 Look at my massive
>>28004012
>and yet gmail is a shitzillion times nicer and more responsive with javascript.
If you want your mail to be viewed in a responsive environment then use a local viewer. Webmail really is shit-tier for people who don't know how to configure their mail client.
2 hours later 28004339 Anonymous
>>28004305
javascript and compile in the same sentence?
2 hours later 28004341 Look at my massive
>>28004268
Now think about sites where the functionality is not possible to turn off because it breaks the site.
2 hours later 28004346 Anonymous
>>28004324
>who don't know how to configure their mail client.
What if I don't want to know?
2 hours later 28004364 Look at my massive
>>28004346
Then you're stuck using a shitty webmail interface.
>>28004339
Javascript and standards in the same sentence was what got me.
2 hours later 28004381 Anonymous
>>28004339
>thinking this is a new concept
ever heard of CoffeeScript? Google web runtime?
2 hours later 28004385 Anonymous
>>28004364
>Then you're stuck using a shitty webmail interface.
>shitty
Can I send and look at emails with it? If so, I disagree with that word.
2 hours later 28004396 Anonymous
>>28004364
>Javascript and standards in the same sentence was what got me.
why?
2 hours later 28004404 Anonymous
>>28004385
>shitty
>slow and unresponsive
that's shitty
2 hours later 28004406 Hupo
>>28004364
>I don't think webmail needs javascript to function nicely.
>Then you're stuck using a shitty webmail interface.
Try to decide already. Can webmail function nicely or are they always shitty? Or... are they just always shitty if they must fulfill your "NO JAVASCRIPT EVER" standards?
2 hours later 28004433 Look at my massive
>>28004385
You were the one saying you NEEDED javascript to make it responsive. If you care about how responsive your mail client is then webmail will never be as good as a local mail program.
You're apparently also completely happy to admit that you don't know how to use a local mail program, so take it from somebody who does know -- it's better than webmail.
2 hours later 28004453 Look at my massive
>>28004406
They're always shitty. Javascript is used here to fix a problem that is only a problem because you want to do everything in a browser.
2 hours later 28004461 Anonymous
>>28004433
>You were the one saying you NEEDED javascript to make it responsive.
Actually, I wasn't.
2 hours later 28004511 Anonymous
>>28004453
because doing everything serverside has no disadvantages at all.
2 hours later 28004522 Anonymous (RzRcw.jpg 800x600 66kB)
>>28003784
2 hours later 28004533 Anonymous
>>28002667
So basically MS is pushing their own JS-alike language and it looks like C#.
2 hours later 28004535 Anonymous
>>28004522
lol. javascript summed up.
2 hours later 28004544 Anonymous
>>28004522
>Javascript in a nutshell.jpg
2 hours later 28004547 Look at my massive
>>28004511
What are you even talking about? Email has standardised protocols and has no reason to be handled inside a browser except in times of desperation.
2 hours later 28004558 Anonymous
>>28004533
>looks like c#
only it's a javascript superset so that's kinda hard.
also completely open spec and open source.
the compiler is written in typescript and therefor compiles to javascript, meaning it can be run on any OS.
2 hours later 28004567 Anonymous
>>28004547
responsive UI isn't desireable at all in webmail? are you serious?
2 hours later 28004573 Anonymous
>>28004547
Obviously he was generalizing and not just talking about email.
2 hours later 28004577 Look at my massive
>>28004567
Webmail will never be as responsive as a local client. Not by a long shot.
2 hours later 28004594 Anonymous
>>28004567
>responsive UI
Email is HTML. It's static text and images, sometimes not even that. How responsive do you want it to be?
2 hours later 28004604 Anonymous
I like how the Microsoft shill who started this thread is still here spouting buzzwords here and there.
2 hours later 28004621 Anonymous
>>28004577
???
but it can be much much more responsive with javascript than without. Webmail is going to be what most people use as their main email. this won't change any time soon.
I also, for personal use, find webmail far superior to a regular mail client. don't have to wait for my inbox to download every fucking time, I get an instant view and everything is typically snappy and responsive. might be less power user features but i'm not a power user email user and I have more than enough to keep me happy. using a full email client has it's own disadvantages and webmail squares up against it pretty well for my own needs.
2 hours later 28004631 Anonymous
>>28004594
as responsive as gmail is now. not as unsresponsive as gmail is with javascript turned off.
2 hours later 28004634 Anonymous
>>28004621
> don't have to wait for my inbox to download every fucking time
Lost it right there.
2 hours later 28004645 Anonymous
>>28004621
>don't have to wait for my inbox to download every fucking time
doingitwrong.xml
2 hours later 28004658 Look at my massive
>>28004621
You've just gone and shown that you don't know enough about the subject to have a proper conversation with.
Even webmail should be designed to work without javascript.
2 hours later 28004710 Anonymous
>>28004658
webmail is designed to work without javascript, it's just a lot slower and unresponsive. want to see the next page of your inbox?
>click
>loading.....
want to open an email?
>click
>loading........
javascript allows lots of shit to happen like just downloading the actual data relevant to the email you want to see instead of loading an entire new page. It can also cache the emails and pages it thinks you're likely to look at. It's much more fluid and nice to use.
2 hours later 28004731 Anonymous
>>28004710
>>loading.....
How slow is your internet
see: >>28004594
2 hours later 28004758 Look at my massive
>>28004710
That's fine enough design, then. So long as client-side scripting is not an absolute requirement.
Just to clarify for you; when you use webmail your email must be retrieved every time you open it. You just don't realise it. When you use a local mail program your emails can (and should) be configured to be retrieved automatically in the background, giving you instant access to them.
Your problem, as previously stated, is that you don't know how to into email properly.
2 hours later 28004785 Anonymous
>>28004731
my internet connection is 10Mbit. That's not even the relevant part, the amount of time it takes to request the download of a webpage to the time it takes to finish the download is more than noticeable and makes caching in webmail on clientside a very worthy optimisation. Maybe you don't like webmail, but you can't deny it's enormously popular and gets the job done for the vast majority of people. It would not be half as pleasant to use if not for javascript.
again, gmail works without javascript and the difference is like night and day. try it out yourself sometime.
2 hours later 28004806 Anonymous
>>28004758
>Just to clarify for you; when you use webmail your email must be retrieved every time you open it
false, any modern webmail service starts caching the email you're likely to open as soon as the inbox is downloaded and displayed.
2 hours later 28004849 Look at my massive
>>28004806
Every time you log in is still worse than a local disk cache.
2 hours later 28004947 Anonymous
>>28004849
your logic is confusing.
you're saying javascript is useless on the web.
I'm arguing that it actually makes some kinds of websites vastly more useful and responsive.
you respond saying "so wut?? desktop software is always better!!!"
by that logic you might as well say we don't need any kind of web, we can just use desktop applications for everything instead of websites since desktops software is so much more versatile.
The advantages of websites should be obvious. Yes of course fucking desktop software will always be superior in certain aspects but that doesn't mean it's not terribly useful to have some aspects that are good in desktop application available to web sites and web based applications. Gmail is a perfect example. Maybe you're implying that no one should ever use webmail because desktop email clients are always better, if that was the case then people would all be doing exactly that. webmail has some advantages to people over desktop email clients and javascript makes it much more usable.
3 hours later 28005036 Look at my massive
>>28004947
You seem to be incapable of understanding the subtleties of this conversation.
Email has standardised protocols that make an interface over HTTP pointless. Local software is always better in such a situation.
>Maybe you're implying that no one should ever use webmail because desktop email clients are always better, if that was the case then people would all be doing exactly that
Wrong. People are stupid and don't know any better. People like you.
3 hours later 28005087 Anonymous
>>28005036
>Email has standardised protocols that make an interface over HTTP pointless. Local software is always better in such a situation.
and what has that got to do with JavaScript making webmail better?
3 hours later 28005104 Look at my massive
>>28005087
Coriander improves the taste of a shit sandwich, but that's irrelevant. The question any sensible person will ask you is: "why are you eating a shit sandwich?"
3 hours later 28005114 Anonymous
>>28005104
so you're saying HTML is shit? or webmail is shit?
3 hours later 28005115 Look at my massive
>>28005104
Or, better yet,
"Why are you eating a shit sandwich? We have ham."
3 hours later 28005161 Look at my massive
>>28005114
Webmail, obviously.
In this analogy coriander is javascript and cured meats are local programs.
I wish they'd stop putting coriander in fucking everything.
3 hours later 28005164 Anonymous
>>28005115
are you saying all webmail is shit and native clients should always be used instead?
3 hours later 28005177 Hupo
>>28005115
Can you name something that you do on a regular basis in your e-mail client that is impossible to do in GMail?
3 hours later 28005193 Anonymous
>>28005161
I use webmail a lot when i'm in college. I don't have access to a native email client. I can log into my gmail from anywhere to access my shit. I find skydrive and dropbox web interfaces equally useful in these scenarios. Do you not consider these useful user case scenarios?
3 hours later 28005219 Look at my massive
>>28005177
View and compose email offline. Work with my own keybindings and actually have choice in how things are viewed, stored, filtered etc.
... and you're still missing the point that it's not about WHAT you can do, but how well you can do it.
AND you're a fucking retard for trusting Google with your data. AND you're a retard for leaving all of your email online where some black-hat can potentially view and retrieve it for himself.
3 hours later 28005240 Hupo
>>28005193
Let's not forget that a web application is also a cross-platform application, so even if you had for example a portable email client for Windows on your USB stick, it'd be useless if you were trying to run it on some Linux distro. A web application is accessible from anything that an internet connection and a reasonably modern browser.
3 hours later 28005261 Look at my massive
>>28005193
Your college doesn't provide you with a native email client? Your college sucks.
Webmail is useful for extenuating circumstances only, such as if your college sucks and you don't have any access to a native client.
3 hours later 28005280 Anonymous
>>28005219
>AND you're a retard for leaving all of your email online where some black-hat can potentially view and retrieve it for himself.
they'd have to get past 2 step verification AND be interested in anything I have.
would have to be in tin foil hat mode to be seriously worried about that.
3 hours later 28005293 Anonymous
>>28005261
>Webmail is useful for extenuating circumstances only
which happen from time to time, so why not have JavaScript to make it work well when you need it?
3 hours later 28005327 Look at my massive
>>28005240
And yet college computers are also the exact kind of places where you may be unable to enable javascript for security reasons.
If you're going to advocate web interfaces for these kind of extenuating circumstances then you MUST agree with my original point that client-side scripting that breaks when disabled is the bane of the internet.
3 hours later 28005342 Anonymous
>>28004221
>- prototype-based vs. class-based
The prototype-based object system is a result of the weak type system. You can't have classes without a strong notion of type.
>- functional aspects vs. completely imperative
While true, it's not a fundamental aspect of the language. There are many Java-based variants that make functions first-class objects. Java 8 may make this a part of the language.
>- interpreted vs. (bytecode) compiled
This is not a feature of the language. This is an implementation detail. For example, some JavaScript engines compile JavaScript to intermediate code before execution.
>- function scope vs block scope
JavaScript variable scope and hoisting are both results of the dynamic type system.
3 hours later 28005353 Look at my massive
>>28005280
But Google viewing it all is fine.
3 hours later 28005360 Anonymous
>>28005327
>And yet college computers are also the exact kind of places where you may be unable to enable javascript for security reasons.
LOL. no place disables fucking javascript for security reasons. Maybe plugins but never fucking javascript, it's far too widely used. you might as well disable the webrowser too, which would make the computer mostly useless to most people.
3 hours later 28005364 Anonymous
>>28005293
johnson is a dumbfuck, don't listen to him
3 hours later 28005371 Anonymous
>>28005364
I'm beginning to realise that.
3 hours later 28005394 Look at my massive (Xzibit_med.jpg 300x300 66kB)
>>28005360
You said extenuating circumstances. I've added extenuating circumstances to your extenuating circumstances.
3 hours later 28005403 Look at my massive
>>28005364
>>28005371
Cry more, bitches.
3 hours later 28005430 Hupo
>>28005219
>View and compose email offline.
GMail Offline / https://mail.google.com/mail/mu/?mui=ca
>Work with my own keybindings
You can customize keybinds in GMail.
>have choice in how things are viewed, stored, filtered etc.
There's tons of ways to catalogue/filter mails in GMail.
It's like you haven't even tried to do this stuff in GMail, just declared it to be impossible and didn't even bother trying because of that.
>>28005327
>you MUST agree with my original point that client-side scripting that breaks when disabled
I already agreed in my first post that websites that require JavaScript for basic functionality (like actually VIEWING the webpage, I'm looking at you Gawker Network) are retarded, but I'm completely fine with rich web applications requiring JavaScript to work, because well, they're applications, not just mere websites.
3 hours later 28005489 Look at my massive
>>28005430
>There's tons of ways to catalogue/filter mails in GMail.
But nothing like you can write yourself in maybe 10 lines of script.
>You can customize keybinds in GMail.
Can't use Vim keys. Or Emacs keys. Or anything but a very limited set of bindings.
>GMail Offline
Experimental software and requires you to use a plugin. Lots of extenuating circumstances (your favourite!) don't allow plug-ins.
3 hours later 28005504 Look at my massive
>>28005430
okay, i'll admit. Gmail may be able to do most of the stuff I use in my own desktop client. But why should I have to learn to use something different? What I use now works ffs. I think it's fair to assume the people who don't like desktop email clients as much as I do only do so because they don't use them enough to like them, if they did they would see they're superior. And these pieces of shit just use webmail all the time, why the fuck should I give a shit about them when they have such inferior taste to me? Just try and prove me wrong.
protip: you can't.
3 hours later 28005535 Anonymous
>>28005489
>But nothing like you can write yourself in maybe 10 lines of script.
>Can't use Vim keys. Or Emacs keys. Or anything but a very limited set of bindings.
and everyone who uses webmail no matter who they are are stupid idiots. okay then. Because everyone totally wants/needs these features...
3 hours later 28005540 Anonymous
>>28005504
2/10. I wouldn't have double checked the trip if it wasn't for your really shitty impersonation of LAMMJ.
3 hours later 28005549 Look at my massive
>>28005504
At least try to correctly punctuate.
Oh, and hey, what do you do when Google make a change to with their webmail interface that you don't like?
Complain? Just put up with it?
Webmail: Because I don't like having choice
3 hours later 28005555 Anonymous
>>28005504
>But why should I have to learn to use something different?
wow you went and keep going on so many tangents to defend your already lost cause it's not even funny.
I don't even know how much patience do you even need to carry any type of conversation with you.
3 hours later 28005564 Look at my massive
>>28005535
>I want whatever Google give me
3 hours later 28005567 Anonymous
>>28005555
whoa, I didn't check the trip. I'd erase my post but my get is darn delicious.
3 hours later 28005576 Anonymous
>>28005555
Fucking retard.
3 hours later 28005579 Look at my massive
>>28005555
Your broken English betrays your samefaggotry.
3 hours later 28005591 Anonymous
>>28005567
>Le epic get XDDD
>>>/b/
>>>/reddit/
3 hours later 28005593 Anonymous
>>28005579
cut me some slack, I just woke up.
3 hours later 28005595 Anonymous
>Microsoft
Yeah... I think I'll pass on that because Microsoft doesn't exactly have my vote of confidence after the "Embrace - Extend - Extinguish" internal methodology leaked out as well as the way they forced OOXML into becoming a standard with bribes and just improper behavior.
3 hours later 28005610 Anonymous
>>28005591
it's pretty epic.
3 hours later 28005626 Hupo
>>28005489
>requires you to use a plugin
Except I also gave you a plugin-free alternative in the form of an URL. Can you not read or what?
>But nothing like you can write yourself in maybe 10 lines of script.
Yeah, because in GMail you can just make a search and make a filter out of that. I'd say that fares quite well compared to having to do any scripting whatsoever. (Just for an example.)
>>28005549
You know you could always just use your GMail with a native email application - then you'll use that on your desktop and the web application whenever you can't use a native application. Best of both worlds! (If you prefer/need a desktop mail application, that is).
3 hours later 28005627 Anonymous
when will you idiots learn
johnson is a troll and a huge retard, ignore him
3 hours later 28005640 Look at my massive
>>28005626
>Work offline
>Here, just type in this URL!
Dummy.
>You know you could always just use your GMail with a native email application - then you'll use that on your desktop and the web application whenever you can't use a native application. Best of both worlds! (If you prefer/need a desktop mail application, that is).
If you learn to use it properly, you'll never go back to webmail.
Then you have only the privacy issues left.
3 hours later 28005671 Anonymous
>>28005640
you do realize your browser can work offline, right
I assume, that offline client downloads your crap so you can check it offline later. Through your browser. Offline.
3 hours later 28005681 Anonymous
I hope the god you are not trusting your freaking mail in the hands of others, oh wait you are roodypoos that can't even configure postfix.
It's like a company offered to open your mail and sort it nicely, then you can visit their offices to read it or just tell them to send the already opened and sorted mail to your home.
And no worries if you lose your local mail, they will keep backups like forever.
3 hours later 28005698 Anonymous
dunno if it's off topic but anyone knows some script alike 4chan-X for other php forum topics?
3 hours later 28005710 Look at my massive
>>28005671
>https://mail.google.com/mail/mu/?mui=ca
This will always attempt a DNS lookup and then to work online. This can ONLY be redirected to an offline cache if you use a plugin.
So not only do you not know how to use a mail client, you're also shaky on the operating of a web browser?
3 hours later 28005712 Anonymous
>>28005698
you'd probably have to write it yourself.
3 hours later 28005716 Anonymous
>>28005698
I mean able to update a thread with the new posts in the last x seconds
3 hours later 28005731 Anonymous
>>28005712
I though so.
I'l try to modify 4chanX then
3 hours later 28005733 Hupo
>>28005640
>Dummy.
No, you. You only need to visit it once with an active internet connection to cache the application, after that you can access it offline. That's also one of the things you can do with web applications.
>>28005640
>If you learn to use it properly
GMail already does everything I need from an e-mail client and even more. Considering that my closet is also not filled with tinfoil hats, why the hell would I use a desktop mail client? (I actually tried that once, but concluded that it was a waste of time after a while and went back to using the web interface.)
3 hours later 28005748 Look at my massive
>>28005733
>Cares about other people reading his mail
>WAHHHH TINFOIL HAT TINFOIL HAT IF YOU'RE NOT GUILTY YOU HAVE NOTHING TO HIDE
Don't be ridiculous.
3 hours later 28005751 Hupo
>>28005710
>This will always attempt a DNS lookup and then to work online.
And that is somehow a bad thing? Bitch please.
3 hours later 28005757 Look at my massive
>>28005751
It's a bad thing if you need to work offline.
3 hours later 28005768 Anonymous
>>28005757
But it works offline, doesn't it.
I mean, I haven't tried it or anything.
3 hours later 28005800 Hupo
>>28005757
Have you EVER been in a situation where you have an internet connection available but would like to work offline in your MAIL application? I really fucking doubt that.
4 hours later 28005842 Anonymous
>>28005800
>where you have an internet connection available
Oh wow. You're retarded.
4 hours later 28005854 Anonymous
>>28005842
what gives
1.014 0.234