digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About
See the original image at news.cnet.com

Chrome's JavaScript challenge to Silverlight

news.cnet.com — "I think that the next 18 months we're going to see a 100- to 1,000-fold speed increase in JavaScript as Google and the guys at Mozilla are going to kick us all in the arse and make our JavaScript jittered," Microsoft senior program manager Scott Hanselman told the audience Friday, days after Google released its Chrome browser.

Who dugg this? Made popular Sep 7, 2008

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community. Take the Tour to learn more.

214 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • postpostmodern, on 09/06/2008, -9/+219[...] Google and the guys at Mozilla are going to kick us all in the arse [...]
    - Microsoft senior program manager Scott Hanselman

    Someone archive that for posterity...
  • benologist, on 09/07/2008, -22/+164Making JavaScript faster, even though it's long overdue, does not even begin to compensate for all the things JavaScript cannot do and Silverlight or Flash can.
  • MillionsLivio, on 09/07/2008, -3/+108I love competition.
  • xekko, on 09/07/2008, -4/+99I'm still waiting for that entirely JavaScript-powered YouTube.
  • inactive, on 09/07/2008, -15/+70I hate you, and every failed web designer who thinks they can just slap ugly sites together with Flash.
  • greensign, on 09/07/2008, -1/+52"I think that the next 18 months we're going to see a 100- to 1,000-fold speed increase in JavaScript"

    Yes, THAT is really overdue and would make many things actually usable on the internet!
  • demondo, on 09/07/2008, -1/+51He is referring to the JIT (just in time) compilation process. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-in-time_compilat ...
  • reknaps, on 09/07/2008, -3/+49What does jittered mean?
  • rev4bart, on 09/07/2008, -13/+56The problem with Javascript is that it is implemented differently in each browser. You will get different performance speeds on different browsers. The other issue is that JavaScript by itself is nothing without HTML/CSS (another set of UI technologies that are implemented differently across browsers).

    What makes Silverlight/Flash/Flex different is that you DESIGN the application to work and if the plug-in works inside the browser you are done. There is no "plumbing" code that I need to worry about...if (in IE) do this. Furthermore, Silverlight/Flash integrate the design/programming all inside one package. In Silverlight, I design the UI with XAML and not have to worry about HTML/CSS at all (for the most part, if I don't need any HTML helpers). Forget about the (100 -> 1,000 fold) performance increase. How is Javascript going to evolve as a language quickly to compete with C# (Silverlight) for example? How is it going to provide a first class IDE for developers all in one package to compete with Silverlight/Flash (i.e. Visual Studio 2008 for Silverlight)? (Right now u need to install 3 seperate non-integrated tools to help you write JavaScript efficiently).
  • TheThirdWheel, on 09/07/2008, -4/+41If it takes you 15 seconds to open a tab it's your computer. I have a 3 year old PC and tabs open in a second or less.
  • benologist, on 09/07/2008, -3/+36It can't. I've worked extensively with JavaScript, Flash and .NET for years and recently started playing with Silverlight. JavaScript works for a lot of scenarios and processing it faster is a very good thing but speed is/was only one of the limitations it presents.

    Some things Silverlight can do that JavaScript can't include being able to directly open and save local files without having to upload or download them, or have Silverlight download and unpack a single zip file containing all the images and whatever else for your application instead of umpteen files, or stream video, or upload multiple files at once etcetera.

  • AirRaven, on 09/07/2008, -9/+37I have to say, at least Microsoft's done a pretty decent job with Silverlight.
    Say what you will about their motives, but it's a good piece of software.
  • wush, on 09/07/2008, -5/+33more like posteriority amirite guys
  • inactive, on 09/07/2008, -0/+22They don't really explain this in the article, but I think the battle will be among developers building web-based business applications, for example, deciding to build a content management system using Silverlight or Flash rather than JavaScript/AJAX.
  • 2ktj, on 09/07/2008, -1/+21Come Monday that will read:

    [...] Google and the guys at Mozilla are going to kick us all in the arse [...]
    - FORMER Microsoft senior program manager Scott Hanselman
  • PL3NTY, on 09/07/2008, -1/+20no... I love competition.
  • brianpeiris, on 09/07/2008, -0/+19Just you wait! When the standards are settled* and the community accepts them** and the browsers have caught-up*** the BSD-licensed Javascript/Theora/Vorbis setup is going to blow you away!

    * That should only take about a year.

    ** You know, In a decade or so.

    *** Sigh, it's not going to happen is it? :(
  • physicsguy, on 09/07/2008, -5/+23Forget the steroids for now. How about they just make it work properly before they try to optimise it.
  • chrisgeleven, on 09/07/2008, -4/+21Long overdue and welcome. Anyone know if IE is going to pump steroids into their JavaScript engine as well?

    If developers continue to push the limits of JavaScript, using AJAX apps in IE is going to be miserable.

    Not that I use IE (Firefox at work, Safari at home). I am more curious then anything.
  • jakem1, on 09/07/2008, -2/+18I disagree. I think it's a problem with the web itself, especially if you want to start using it to deliver actual applications. HTML/CSS/Javascript is not a good platform for developing applications. It's too cumbersome and fiddly which slows the development process and breaks too easily. Until web development gets some proper RAD tools that break down the differences between server and client processes we'll be stuck with an internet that gives us long lists of data with limited user interaction.
  • Ghoul, on 09/07/2008, -3/+19http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalable_Vector_Graph ...
  • init100, on 09/07/2008, -3/+18@benologist

    "Some things Silverlight can do that JavaScript can't include being able to directly open and save local files"

    Which sounds like a good reason for staying away from Silverlight. I don't want web pages reading and writing local files on my system. Actually, that sounds like a serious security hole.

    @BradBrown

    "Does Javascript give you access to the browser's canvas, so you can create your own controls?"

    As far as I know, this cannot be done with Javascript loaded from a remote site, and that's a good thing. Downloaded scripts must be treated as untrusted, and thus should not be able to modify the browser window in any significant way.

    On the other hand, at least in Firefox, locally loaded Javascript can modify the browser interface. That's actually how the entire Firefox UI is designed. The complete user interface is written in XUL, and all actions are scripted through Javascript. This is a big part in the extensibility of Firefox.
  • houndeyex, on 09/07/2008, -0/+15There's language limitations. You can't really handle multimedia with it very well, and it doesn't have any access to the file system.

    I honestly think most of this is by design and should probably stay this way, but who knows. The last thing I want is some random website accessing my files, even if it is by permission. Too many computer illiterate users will go "I dunno.... click okay." and we enter a new age a web-based malware.
  • dazparkour, on 09/07/2008, -8/+23It is, believe it or not possible - it's just not a good idea.
  • noticarus, on 09/07/2008, -3/+16Scott's brilliant. I went to high school with him and ran into him a few years ago around the corner from my house. Turns out we were neighbors, I remember being impressed at the tech books he had written. Even more impressed now to see him on the Digg front page.
  • MtheoryX, on 09/07/2008, -5/+17"...you DESIGN the application to work and if the plug-in works inside the browser you are done..."

    Yes, if a proprietary, non-standard plugin happens to work inside a certain users browser, you most certainly are done.

    Fortunately, there do still exist some web developers who would rather design things according to actual web standards that ARE implemented in all browsers.

    tl;dr: JavaScript and V8 are not competing with Flash/Flex/Silverlight. It just happens to be better.
  • allnone, on 09/07/2008, -2/+14I tried Flex and I went back.
  • Jon211, on 09/07/2008, -1/+13I really hope so.
    Like it or not, IE is going to be used by the majority of web users for a while yet and if they don't get JavaScript up to speed then it will hold back the next gen of web apps.

    It's fine if the tech savvy community are using Chrome or Firefox with fast JavaScript, but if your average Joe who knows nothing else except IE can't use the future JavaScript heavy apps very well then I can't see them becoming popular.
  • inactive, on 09/07/2008, -3/+14You can write JavaScript in Microsoft Visual Studio 2008, which is very cool. IntelliSense will dramatically reduce your development time.
  • thetanman, on 09/07/2008, -3/+14I actually think Google has done a helluva job with the tabs. I used Chrome for a couple of days and when I went back to Firefox it felt old. Of course I miss add-ons, but for the first week of a completely new browser I'm really impressed.

    If you haven't watched it yet, check out their 3min feature video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xlh8gSF_hhE&feature ...
  • nephilimx, on 09/07/2008, -4/+15Not as bad as the "premade" php website disease... oh look its phpnuke, lets use this bloated code instead of making simple frames.
  • i3rYs0n, on 09/07/2008, -3/+14safari needs extensions to be a usable alternative to firefox
  • JakeW, on 09/07/2008, -13/+24Well.. until IE can be... less bloaty, faster, and open up tabs in less then 15 seconds, I'm sticking with Firefox. (And using Chrome for a few select sites!)
  • igul222, on 09/07/2008, -0/+11Yes.
  • inactive, on 09/07/2008, -7/+18People need to remember that Silverlight and Flash are browser plugins. They aren't native to any browser and should never be used to design entire web sites. Doing such a thing is like creating a Java based operating system. All your doing is layering, what is essentially a media engine, over a media engine; it's redundant and worthless.

    Javascript is currently the only real client side language available to create Web-based applications. With that said, people should focus on improving not just the processing speed of the language but add standardized native APIs for sound and data transfer (Ajax), as well as structures for real object orientation.
  • rodrigo74, on 09/07/2008, -1/+11Scott Hanselman is not your typical Microsoft manager anyway, he joined them just a few months ago and is more of an outsider. For one, he is a declared Firefox/Firebug fan. Not the first time he makes this kind of comments, and probably not the last either..I think that being so outspoken was one of the reasons why the ASP.NET team hired him, actually.

    A few months ago he was holding the keynote for a big developer conference here in Norway and it was funny to see the slide where he presented all his certifications (MCSD, MCSE etc) just to put a huge clipart of a piece of ***** on top of it. The irony was that the conference was being organized by the biggest Norwegian training company, specialized on the same certificates...not sure he will be invited again next year!
  • inactive, on 09/07/2008, -3/+13How the hell can JavaScript challenge Silverlight? This is literally like the apple challenging the orange...
  • MtheoryX, on 09/07/2008, -0/+10What? When did this happen?
  • subgeniusd, on 09/07/2008, -0/+9What is this "Google" you reference, enlightened one?
  • HueytheFreeman, on 09/07/2008, -4/+13YOU ARE = YOU'RE
  • rollerz, on 09/07/2008, -18/+26You, sir, are all that is wrong with the web development community.
  • Demonmonger, on 09/07/2008, -2/+10As long as people are still using browsers like IE6, I don't give a damn about javascript as an enterprise application's UI. The browser base is fragmented and not consistent. It is simply not viable for a RIA at this point.
  • allnone, on 09/07/2008, -1/+9.NET vs Java? I know a lot of people that use both.
  • LeviTheSmith, on 09/07/2008, -1/+9A web browser made by Google.
  • inactive, on 09/07/2008, -6/+14Naysayer spotted. If you don't understand the other sides of the technologies, you should rather not talk about it, because you're making a fool out of yourself. Tell me what do you know about .NET and Silverlight?
  • Jforsyth89, on 09/07/2008, -0/+8You are thinking of Java

    Java != Javascript
  • insllvn, on 09/07/2008, -1/+9@shawnz: perfectly safe, like javascript which has never been used for malicious purposes. Ever.
  • XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, on 09/07/2008, -1/+9it's called JIT and firefox is getting it in 3.1
  • gcnaddict, on 09/07/2008, -1/+9It does for me. Sheesh.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 221 discussions

  • Add a Comment

    Login or register to comment!
    Or, sign-in super fast with your Facebook account ...


© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content created and posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain | Terms of Use Updated | Privacy Policy
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.