AJAX and alternatives, was: Re: [FoRK] AJAX: Asynchronous JavaScript + XML

Gordon Mohr gojomofork at xavvy.com
Wed Mar 30 16:14:59 PST 2005


Whatever happened to 'Curl'? (The Perl-and-Java-competitor
client-side bandwidth-saving dynamic content lispy scripting
language thingum, not the cmdline www client.)

It was just over 4 years ago...

   http://www.xent.com/FoRK-archive/2001.03/0381.html

("$1 billion/year" in browser plugin license fees!?!?
What were their CEO and investors smoking? In 2001, no
less.)

- Gordon


Stephen D. Williams wrote:
> Luis Villa wrote:
> 
>> On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 18:03:39 -0500, Stephen D. Williams <sdw at lig.net> 
>> wrote:
>>  
>>
>>> On the other hand, I don't think you can do the level of multimedia
>>> graphics and processing that this can:
>>>
>>> http://processing.org/
>>>
>>> Check out the BitTorrent simulation:
>>> http://aphid.org/btsim/
>>>
>>> I just found this and am impressed by it for a couple reasons.
>>> Hopefully they will open source it smoothly.
>>>   
>>
>>
>> So is this effectively a slicker, potentially open flash? The website
>> is... a little cryptic.
>>  
>>
> It is simpler than that, but for some purposes, yes.  It is really just 
> a small-language that allows arbitrary inline-Java and is effectively a 
> class that greatly simplifies doing Flash-like programming, especially 
> graphics and GUI handling.  The project also includes a simple but nice 
> IDE, a nice library of abilities, a nice open library of plugins, good 
> examples, and an easy ability to create and publish applets.
> 
> The semi-language / small language method of creating a simplified 
> scripting language that gets translated into Java along with inline Java 
> code is a great way to unclutter this kind of programming.  I see this 
> as being cool for both Flash-like programming but also for beginning 
> programming for kids (mine).
> 
> Hopefully they will follow through and leverage this into something that 
> becomes really cool.
> I already have simple Java code for network communication and will be 
> using this in the next few days to solve a problem that I was climbing 
> the Flash learning curve to solve.
> 
>>> Among lightweight browser/thin client options, here is what I am
>>> interested in:
>>>
>>> AJAX - when I want most compatibility, very lightweight usability, and
>>> can live with Javascript
>>> Flash - for multimedia presentations and some kinds of applications
>>> (including chat probably)
>>>   
>>
>>
>> FWIW, I've seen excellent chat clients (notably
>> http://jwchat.sourceforge.net/) in pure DHTML.
>>  
>>
> I hadn't looked at this for a while, which is silly because I was CTO of 
> Jabber.com, Inc. for 3 months years ago.  Thanks for the pointer.  
> You're right, I'm more interested in an AJAX/DHTML chat capability than 
> Flash, at least until I want more video integration.
> 
>>> It is very interesting how the XForms, XUL, XAML, and
>>> HTML+forms+scripting styles are evolving and competing.  The W3C
>>> presentation of XForms at the Plenary in Feb. was very impressive but I
>>> understand that the browser vendors (Mozilla, Opera, et al) are
>>> balking.    
>>
>>
>> I believe Mozilla has a fairly decent xforms implementation as a 
>> plugin already:
>> http://www.mozilla.org/projects/xforms/#FeatureStatus
>>
>> But yes, I do also believe they are already talking up a replacement.
>>
>>  
>>
>>> MS seems to be preparing for XAML-as-browser-replacement,
>>> which would be great for a Firefox/XUL/Java/OSS solution but scary from
>>> The untrustable Monopolist bad-boy of the IT world.
>>>   
>>
>>
>> This scares me (as a free software developer) more than anything else
>> MS is doing. The web is /the/ killer app; if they succeed in patenting
>> it (which is basically what a XAML-based web would mean) then all
>> other OSs are DOA.
>>  
>>
> The flipside is that XUL-like (and AJAX, Flash, Processing et al) have 
> just as much chance of making traditional and ineligant 
> thick-application development obsolete, seriously undercutting 
> architecture affinity upon which such a monopoly depends.  Someone had 
> to have looked at XUL and said: "crap, the popularity of HTML and XML 
> show that if you could invoke arbitrary infrastructure and application 
> logic with XML like HTML pages are used, native applications are dead".  
> Or so I imagine.
> 
>> Luis
>>  
>>
> 
> sdw
> 



More information about the FoRK mailing list