"We are so, so happy with Google Chrome," mumbled Mozilla CEO John Lilly through gritted teeth. "That most of our income is from Google has no bearing on me making this statement." - http://notnews.today.com/?p=57

Nice input on client relevance but I'm guessing you have never done any coding since you think a loosely typed scripting language like JS has some relevance on the server side. As JS involves so does it's abilities and maybe it's relevance in other areas but these next-gen VMs have managed to make up for the main shortcomings of JS on the client.

I think you're misreading this.

Many browser makers are rushing to announce fast JIT script engines. Together, all these make less than 20% of the browsers out there.

Microsoft is not announcing a fast script engine. They make the vast majority of browser engines.

Meanwhile, Adobe Flash Player 9 already includes fast scripting, and is installed on over 95% of the computers out there. Today. Regardless of browser brand. 

A more realistic take: In order to maintain the illusion of browser-supremacy, most browser makers are scrambling to announce improvements to their scripting engines, but the only browser vendor which matters has not.

Charles Mackay offered a good perspective on the social aspects, back in 1841:
http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/24518

jd/adobe

Stefan,
 Loosely typed, dynamic features are the reason Ruby & Python are becoming popular on the server side. So I stand by my prediction: Javascript is going to the server!

John,
  What is your argument? That Microsoft's crippled browser is the reason Flash would win? That is an awfully weak foundation on which to erect a strategy for Adobe - let's not forget the minor fact that the very same crippled browser vendor is also intent on force-feeding Silverlight to the world. Good luck with AIR - you are going to need it.

Sridhar

quote:
"What is your argument? That Microsoft’s crippled browser is the reason Flash would win?"
umm most of the ppl are not interested in what browser they are using so aslong as windows retains popularity IE will too.
80% of the ppl dont care about what browser theyre using.

Sridhar,

I am very happy to see Chromium and Google Chrome out in the open, so we can talk more about it now and get you as part of the community :)

Cheers,

Dion Almaer

Open Web Advocate, Google

As someone who has spent the last two years exclusively developing client-side JavaScript for a rich internet application, all I can say is I sincerely hope that client-side JavaScript is NOT the future of web development.  Developing an application with JS takes at least 3 times longer than developing a roughly equivalent desktop app and it will almost certainly be inferior in terms of both stability and usability.  It's not just the fact that the language is loosely typed and has nothing resembling a compiler to catch simple mistakes, it's also that you're basically developing for 5 different operating systems if you want to support the major browsers (IE6, IE7, FF/Gecko, Safari, and Opera).    It's like the old Java applet days of "write once, debug everywhere" and boy does that debugging take some time.  Even using a rich widget library like EXT or YUI to level the playing field a bit, if you've developed any type of reasonably complex interface, you will inevitably run into tons of nitpicky little cross browser rendering issues (and it's not just IE).  Hell, even getting things to render properly inside of a single browser can be a time suck.  Recently I started playing with Flex and I literally put together an interface prototype of the application that has taken us 6 months to build in under 8 hours.  And that was with maybe 16 hours of training time on Flex.  There is no conceivable way that I EVER could have built that interface with EXT or YUI in 8 hours.  I doubt I could accomplish the same feat in two weeks with EXT or YUI.  Sorry, but I just don't buy that pure JavaScript is the future of web development - barring some massive (and I do mean massive) improvements in cross-browser standardization, DOM performance, and some type of JS compiler to at least catch simple errors like fat-fingering a function  name, we would be taking a massive step backwards in terms of developer productivity and the cost to product software.

Dion,
 We are already testing Zoho apps on Chrome. Definitely very impressed with the speed, and only minor glitches. This is a huge win for the web developer ecosystem!

  Now, I hope you guys are working on in-browser, Javascriptable video ;)

Sridhar

I completely agree with Mike - building in Flash (or Flex) is a delight in terms of productivity vs. JavaScript. We've built 100% Flash websites (including our own above), and not only do we have enormous control on the appearance and behavior of the app, but we've also never had any real cross browser/OS issues. The only reason we continue to test cross browser/OS is because of the problems we get even with the little JS we have.

Sridhar is right though that this is a big step forward for JS (Chrome is blazingly fast), but I just don't see JS UI as a ready substitute for Flash.

John Dowdell wrote: "A more realistic take: In order to maintain the illusion of browser-supremacy, most browser makers are scrambling to announce improvements to their scripting engines, but the only browser vendor which matters has not."

The only browser vendor which matters to whom? Isn't this a ZOHO blog? To ZOHO users? I don't think so.

I agree: Google doesn't really care about winning the "browser wars". They care about making the web a platform, and Chrome is a forcing function for other browsers to invest in that - you can bet MS will beef up their js interpreter once more and more js webapps start running slower on IE.

However, js still has a long way to go before it becomes a client platform of choice. Compilation for starters - I wouldn't be willing to invest a large portion of my IP in javascript that can be easily copied. .NET / Silveright still have an (if only perceived) edge there. Library support is still clearly in its infancy (despite great efforts like prototype). A dominant app sandbox like Gears still needs to emerge.

That said, my money is on js / ajax. It's a matter of time.

[...]  Firefox 3.1 %26 Google Chrome: Javascript Wins, Flash/Silverlight Lose  We work closely with Google Gears and other open source teams in Google. On multiple occasions, I have joked with them “Web apps like us need a really good Javascript engine, I hope you guys are working on it”. … [...] 

Just try http://research.sun.com/projects/lively/ in Chrome
vs. Firefox.

[...] browser then coupled with Google's Gears, a collection of web widgets, clearly puts in competition with Adobe's Air and Microsoft's Silverlight. As JavaScript engines become faster and if a standard HTML video element was adopted, the future [...] 

i'm willing to try it out just to see if it works more efficiently than FireFox... if it's faster than Firefox and isn't IE, then i'll use it

There is no doubt chrome is superior vis-a-vis firefox for javascript applications. It should get interesting when Firefox 3.1 comes out in a couple of months with its beefed up Javascript VM.

[...] má notícia para a Adobe. JavaScript ganha, Flash/Silverlight perdem. A Liberdade de Expressão é uma dádiva que aflora na web. Também por isto aqui estou eu para [...] 

How is Chrome going to get installed on millions of computers? E.G. your mother's computer?

Maybe if Google starts making a lot of computers or providing the standard operating system for them.

Maybe if Google comes out with such a "killer" Chrome-based app that everybody needs to get it.

I think Adobe's own Buzzword is already much better than whatever Javascript-based word processor out there. Now imagine someone implements the whole Office suite in SilverLight after it ships. It's going to blow everyone else away.

But then again what else remarks do you expect from Zoho folks who build their business on HTML/JAVASCRIPT. It would surprise me if it doesn't dis Flash/SilverLight/JavaFX from time to time.

[...] Vembu, directeur van ZoHo, schetst de volgens hem nieuwe marktverhoudingen:  “(…) The biggest losers in Google’s [...] 

Limited Life Experiences + Overgeneralization - Paul Buchheit

http://bubblemark.com/silverlight2.html and http://bubblemark.com/dhtml.htm. Run them both at 16 balls. Good luck google, you still have a lot of work to do

[...] http://blogs.zoho.com/uncategorized/firefox-31-google-chrome-javascript-wins-flashsilverlight-lose/ [...] 

hi...

usefull...

Sridhar,

Your prediction of Javascript taking its position on the server side is getting right.. 

http://ajaxian.com/archives/etherpad-collab-your-script

Following is the excerpt from the above url..

It’s a realtime collaborative text editor that runs in a web browser
(IE6+, FF1.5+, Safari 3+). It’s implemented entirely in JavaScript
(server, client, and database), which I think speaks to the power of
JavaScript as a language.

JK

hi, I stumbled upon this post. First I want to say i'm starting to study Computer Engineering, so I do not have experience/knowledge on programming. Although I undestand what are you all talking about, I would like to give some consumer aim to my opinions.

We need to get focused on something and give it a nudge. Large companies  are struggling to get to the top of this browser war and this will end in nothing. Google has yet taken an advantage, since it supports open standards and believes in comunity-based maintenance of online software, thus accelerating the development based on consumers' needs. 
Think about it: how many years took MS to develop IE as it is today? and how many took Mozilla.org? the only reason why most people are using IE is just that it comes installed on Windows.
But that will soon change. We all have seen people's massive reaction against Vista (and when I mean people, I mean persons like my grandpa).
Think about it! Vista invented the "Downgrade"! Just give MS time to screw up IE (8 perhaps?). I know this sounds a little harsh, but, in my humble opinion, people with less computing skills are realizing when a software is unusable or badly developed. Internet is also helping these people find a suitable alternative to these cases. 
Today I found Zoho and Im already impressed. I have an Original Office 2007 license (MSDN Academic Alliance) and use my notebook with MS OneNote to take class notes. Zoho is already tempting to uninstall office suite since my laptop is short-resourced (Dell C610 with 128mb RAM) and running the exact same thing on a browser, will improve performance. Also the advantage of not having to backup every day (I sync my PC and Laptop as soon I get home from school) and having the freedom to look or edit your documents anywhere, anytime. Google Docs started this, but since I used One Note and Google's Notebook didn't match OneNote, I have sticked with Office. 
The future is Open Standards, and build a commercial model on top of it. and until Adobe and MS realises of this concept, google will lead on the web area.


PS: Forgive my english, but it's a bit rusty.

I don't care what browser gets chosen, but the world just needs one, maybe two just to inspire some competition. Firefox is the likely choice to me, but I don't care. Web development already takes 5 times longer than it should making it work for every browser and now google makes another one? God help us.

Soon we'll just have 50 different browsers to develop for, and a simple site will take 5 years of development to find all the quirks it has in different browsers.

And this is supposed to hurt Flash? Flash has an installed plugin that renders 99.999% of swf files the same across all browsers. Soon people will just opt for flash because it'll be cheaper and quicker to develop for, because you don't have to worry about browser inconsistency. As much as I hate all the downsides to flash, at least I can be sure one version works everywhere with it.

http://blogs.zoho.com/uncategorized/firefox-31-google-chrome-javascript-wins-flashsilverlight-lose


Finally I found some place where I too could voice my growing concern about all this mad-rush around JavaScript. This is just so very wrong.

In our rush to get quick results, we have simply forgotten all the lessons learned so far in the past twenty years; that, to make better applications, you need better tools.

And JavaScript is one of the worst tools. What is even more perplexing about this situation is that these days, unlike say about 10 years ago, there are well-established and much better alternative languages, such as Python and Ruby already available! With that; one would think that logic would dictate that to get better client-side applications, the focus should be on integrating those languages in the browser, as soon as possible. However what we find is that there isn't even a talk about this 'obviousness', and instead the whole focus is on making JavaScript better.

The most-heard argument is that it is already established. But that is just plain wrong. It is prevalent not because it is superior, but because of lack of alternatives. Secondly, as a user of a browser, you are not concerned which scripting language it is running. Only developers of web pages are concerned. And if they have been able to bite the bullet and learn java script, one should have no doubt that they will whole-heatedly welcome Python or Ruby support as a fresh breathe of air and a good riddance. And if no other argument works; then at least there is no harm in exposing these languages; and then let the developer community decide by way of natural selection!

In other words, the assumption that JavaScript is the language of the web because everybody uses it is just plain wrong. Everybody uses it, because they are stuck using it. There is no alternative. Provide a better alternative, and they will gladly move away. 

Common sense, historic understanding, ease of programming, pains of working with JavaScript, prevalence and increasing popularity of Flash and other richer internet apps; all are clear indications that a more powerful programming language on the client side will be welcome. All should indicate that programmers need better tools on the client side. Do continue to enhance JavaScript, but don't do it at the expense of ruling out other languages.

If I had had enough understanding, the only open-source project I would undertake now would be a browser and adding Python support in it. 

The existing trend to completely disregard other languages and solely focus on improving JavaScript and writing its libraries (aka re-inventing the wheel, because most these libraries are there to solve the problems of JavaScript, and Ruby Python already have standard libraries for such tasks) is actually alarming now. It will push us in an era where, we will get stuck with an inferior technology and not because of lack of alternatives, but because of lack of serious and thoughtful vision as to what is the best thing to do. 

The reason JS and all the other scripting engines get so much run up is that they are being used by novices and uneducated "software developers", and their simplicity seems like the best thing yet.

What is happening, is just like what happened in the 80s with the development of MS-Dos towards MS-Windows.  The educated computer scientists, said you need user credentials and you need protected mode memory access to event start to work towards a stable computing platform.

The MSDOS crowd said "you guys need to learn to right 'correct' software and there would be no issues".  This went round and round for decades and slowing the MSDOS people became WINDOWS people and when XP came out, they all finally recognized how wonderful it was that their windows-ME and windows-95 machines could run so much better with something that started to be an 'OS' and manage resources.

Now we have the same thing happening with scripting languages vs compiled and type checked languages.  The uninitiated, uneducated, or otherwise unlearned masses are crying that they've got the best thing going.

They've got JS malware and viruses screwing up the computers and they've got all kinds of issues with over 'featured' browser environments unable to 'deliver' the same experience.

At some point, the ignorance of the masses creeps towards an education for the masses...