What is Digg?57 Comments
- L0t3k, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3That question doesn't even make sense. Java is a language, .Net is a framework, and Ajax is a combination of javascript and a method for getting information without refreshes.
All three are completely different things. - illynova, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3This guy has no idea what the hell he's talking about. How on earth does AJAX replace server side programs? Thats akin to saying html is going to replace image files.
AJAX is a client side technology. All it really does it do some client side processing via js, and also requests xml tidbits from the server, like new e-mail message, etc. What generates those e-mail messages, or account validation? Magic?
Another person who thinks he knows what he's talking about and then proceeds to make sweeping claims. - bpapa, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I don't really think it will replace them, As said above XMLHttpRequest makes requests to SOME server side code sitting somewhere. Essentially this server side code is just a thick layer to access a database. And then AJAX will use this data to create something on a webpage. Sounds great but this is what good web developers have been doing for years anyway, using the MVC design pattern. It's just that with DHTML now we can get much better interfaces and things that look and work like actual desktop applications (meebo for example).
I think AJAX is great and totally changes EVERYTHING, but there still needs to be some server side code in place no matter what happens, so Java and C# aren't going anywhere. - CaughtThinking, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It's amazing how much ignorance floods the web, and how so much of it is from Oreilly blogs.
- Berkana, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Here's what I hope to see:
When SVG is widely supported (in other words, when IE 6 is dead and abandoned and the plug-in for SVG is either standard, or SVG support is built in to all modern browsers) and web apps start to generate custom SVG's with JavaScript taking XML data AJAX style, you'll see some insane web pages do things that they can't even do now with Java or Flash.
(SVG = Scalable Vector Graphics; they're encoded in text and mark-up tags, so can be generated by anything that can output text. The format was developed by Adobe, and standardized through the W3C.) - Cander, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2No because AJAX still needs something server side for XMLHTTP requests and this is just the area Java and .NET is perfect for.
- adolfojp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2How many of you actually read the article and not just the title?
If you read the article you will notice that the title is very misleading. He talks about the importance of back end technologies like .NET or J2EE. What he says is that their HTML generating capabilities (WebForms, JSF) will be a thing of the past because of AJAX. - fleetskeet, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2How can AJAX replace Java? This is like saying C++ will replace assembly.
- zetsurin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1What a load of rubbish. Besides even in this day and age you can't just assume everyone has a browser capable of supporting AJAX (or has their browser configured so it can... they can easily turn JS off).
AJAX is just a nicety, it should never be a foundation for what your are building. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1wow.......front page with only 19 diggs O_O
- redguy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
klaymen, it has the right keyword for morons - it has to be either "IPOD" "AJAX" "LINUX" "APPLE" "XBOX/PS3" etc.
so, it gets digged.
Regarding the article: The author is clearly under the influence of Cocaine or something similar.
Go ahead dicks, DIGG DIGG! Coz' ya mama's so fat her blood type is Ragu ! ) )==8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Berkana, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Re: SVGs, and how they will be even more amazing than what you see with AJAX:
Currently, if you have live updated info that you want to use to update an image on a web page (based on user input for example), you have to generate or pull up a custom graphic on the server side and send the graphic the way Google maps does with each "tile" that makes up your map. Images, such as a graphic of a bar chart for example, are much larger than the raw data used to generate the chart. With live Javascript generated SVG's using XML data fetched asynchronously, web apps could respond even faster and save tons of bandwidth because instead of fetching images over the network, they fetch the tiny bits of raw data, and generate the custom graphics as SVGs using client side scripting.
Imagine if the Google maps were generated as simple vector graphics on the client side (which means you can zoom in without degrading the resolution) from detailed XML data a tiny fraction of the size of the images their maps are currently made up of. Google would save so much bandwidth because not only would they not have to serve images, but only map generating data, but they wouldn't even have to pass fresh data when you zoom in, because vectors can scale without loss of image quality nor resolution. Just one example of the eventual developments started by AJAX and SVG. - martinus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The title does not make sense. It is like asking "Will propellers replace wheels?"
- ephekt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"What an e-tard, surely you need java to make ajax?"
Java has absolutely nothing to do with Javascript. - joel2600, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"
As for .Net, the triumvarate I listed above will kill .Net.
.Net is basically Java, but Microsoftized, with no *compelling* benefit I can think of that isn't already found in AJAX/Flash+XML/Java+XML, and these are already more widespread than .Net."
i ran this through a literal translation engine ... the result:
"hi, i'm sort of a programmer. i sorta know one language and i have a book on another but i can speak freely about other lanuguages i apparently know nothing about. nothing is ubiquitous as the languages i know!" - garbelini, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0This one obviously don't know what he is talking about. I wich I could "undig" it.
- Anekdoten, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Domino speaks the truth. It's ok to like Apple, Google, Firefox, etc. Hell, they are all cool companies/technologies, the problem is when you become a fanboy and everything with their name on it gets your digg.
Hey look, a piece of ***** with Firefox embedded on it, must digg!
Stay focus people. - MioTheGreat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0+lame.
AJAX still requires something like Java or .NET to actually work. - nullmind, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Windows has replaced stupidity... ouch, that one might bit trickier than I thought
- joel2600, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0^^ what adolfoip said ...
no digg because the description is way too misleading and erroneous - iarchie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0AJAX surely is cool. But every technology has its place in the spectrum. Like every hype which claims that THIS will takeover the world, so is the case this time. I guess its time to take a nap and wait till the hype dies down. Then we can talk of who will replace whom.
- JavaMac, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Maybe I misread the article, but I think the author was saying that AJAX could be used to replace the client side and middle tier portions of an n-tier app. So, instead of .Net or Java for a desktop business app, you would create an AJAX Web based app. He said that you would still need an app server, it's role would just be diminished, so perhaps the title was a little misleading.
That said, I think the discussion should be around whether or not business rules belong on the client side. In some cases like simple validation, perhaps it's OK, but what about a pricing look-up table? Would you want that in the hands of someone that could perhaps manipulate the XML and/or JS to provide something, let's say an order, that could be changed to their monetary benefit?
And what about cached files? What if the XML business rules are out of date when you place your order? IMHO, either you would need server side double checking (in which case, why bother with the client side), or you would have to round trip the business rules each time--and that seems needlessly expensive.
Anyway, I disagree with having the business logic coded in XML accessible by the user--even if it were encrypted. It seems like a pain to maintain, and a security nightmare.
No digg.
(Or did I completely misread the article?)
As an aside, I totally agree with the other posters about SVG. I think it holds promise and will be very exciting! - CaptainGs, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Haven't people been using server side programming environments, that generates Java-script to load large amounts of data client side for _YEARS_ getting the same effect?? Oh wait, that didn't involve XML -- so it must be trash.
This guy is a tool -- my favorite was his self absorbed rant right off the bat, "you take technology for granted because of familiarity with it, long before most people have even heard of it ... Then everyone else [catches] up with what you've been doing for several years" - fireport, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0will milk replace water?
- tijer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I think we have a retard. How can this man write so much and still he doesn't get it?
Anyway, I think every time he writes AJAX he actually means Web2 (or "web-only applications"). And anytime he writes Java, C, C# and so on, he means "ordinary desktop-applications".
He just didn't get that AJAX desperately needs a good Java/C/Ruby/whatever backbone to be really screaming efficient.
Progress in this case is not switching paradigms (as his title implies). Progress is combining paradigms. The paradigm of client-side and that of server-side.
And would somebody please fire the admin who made this go on the frontpage while having more than twice the amount of negative comments than diggs? - whalesalad, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I still can't get over the title. AJAX is for giving the user a better experience, but it rests between the app server and the browser. AJAX is not a language, and although simple apps can be written in JS, you cannot make enterprise class applications (the applications of .NET and Java) with AJAX alone. I do although think .NET and Java will die because of Django, Rails, etc...
- oakfan98, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Digging this story automatically makes you retarded
- digx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The reason this article even EXISTS is because of the dumb AJAX hype. People like to say "AJAX" is a new technology but its only a technique that has been around for YEARS (before 2000). Javascript will not replace any computer language, especially with the OOD revolution.
- r3zonance, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"No because AJAX still needs something server side for XMLHTTP requests and this is just the area Java and .NET is perfect for."
Not technically correct, you don't NEED server-side to use AJAX, you can serve up static content, as the server-side scripts just return HTML anyway. - whoreman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I think it guy obviously doesnt understand what AJAX is actually for!
Completely Lame!
No Digg - dominowrecker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0yeah this just goes to show that if you have apple, google, revolution, firefox, or anything anti-microsoft in the title, it gets to the front page almost everytime.
Digg really is filled with geek posers. So sad.
Really sad that I have to sift through all the above crap to get to the good stuff...but alas, the good stuff is worth it :) - bondo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Will table replace lamp?
I love lamp. - jarod42, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Apples and oranges, my friend.
This is almost the same kind of thing as that silly "will Ajax webapps replace desktop apps?" question that pops up every once and a while. Plus, since Ajax is client-side, it's silly to say that it'd replace anything server-side.
Hell, if anything, it'd promote development in these two languages just for the fact that it needs a backend to do anything useful... - mianos, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I gotta dig this based on the stupidity factor. I guess it's no surprise, there are more idiots like this on the internets than the real world as in the real world they are flipping burgers.
- joel2600, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Digging this story automatically makes you retarded"
bwahahahahaha ...... sad, but true - Bubba99, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0That's the stupidest thing I've ever head.
- Gronkk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Whoever made this comment is an idiot.
- tijer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0If only silence would replace stupidity. But it won't.
- graymouser, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Yeah, this certainly falls under "stupid." Will cell phones replace windshield wipers? Will the Xbox 360 replace your gastrointestinal system?
- EternalNY1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Please use the dropdown next to the story to report this as "ok this is stupid".
As a 15 year computer programmer, currently working with both .Net and AJAX, this article makes absolutely no sense. It compares apples to oranges and this guy obviously has no idea what he is talking about. - Claymore, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Before you digg this story please take a few hours/days to get a basic understanding of each of the development tools they are attempting to discuss...
- Berkana, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Java + XML and Flash + XML will still have a place because they are pseudo-compiled; JavaScript + XML (a.k.a. AJAX) can do a lot, but since it is interpreted, very sophisticated effects on the client side will probably be done better by Flash + XML, and in some cases, Java+XML.
As for .Net, the triumvarate I listed above will kill .Net.
.Net is basically Java, but Microsoftized, with no *compelling* benefit I can think of that isn't already found in AJAX/Flash+XML/Java+XML, and these are already more widespread than .Net. - Edgardo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0what a lame post man
- zubov, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0FUD
- qwertme, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0No.
"There are no stupid questions, just stupid people" - mmansoor, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0The most stupid digg you will ever do. FUD
- PolyVector, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!
- Ramble, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Stupid stupid person..
".Net is basically Java"
.net is a framework, I'm assuming you're talking about C#. -
Show 51 - 55 of 55 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is