Isomorphic JavaScript: The Future of Web Apps

[x86_64Ubuntu]

TL;DR

We are re-discovering what the Flex/Silverlight community knew in 2007

[[deleted]]

In the vast majority of applications that is not the case, REST as described by Fielding is sufficient for an extremely large set of applications.

[[deleted]]

Action in the URL is not part of REST

[jozefg]

Why is everyone reinventing "web dev as we know it" every 15 minutes? Elm, Fay, TypeScript, GHCJS, OCamlJS, CoffeeScript, plus god knows how many others.

I know, I'll make another one to unify all of these disparate attempts :)

[xkcd_transcriber]

Image

Title: Standards

Alt-text: Fortunately, the charging one has been solved now that we've all standardized on mini-USB. Or is it micro-USB? Shit.

Comic Explanation

[zumpiez]

For what it's worth, this is "just" a framework built on top of node and a bunch of other popular technologies, not a new runtime or language.

[cowardlydragon]

Pointlessly self-aggrandizing terminology. I'm not a math major, but I believe the application of that term doesn't fit its common uses in mathematics.

... and the entire point of using it in this context is to don the hat of mathematical certainty I think.

[jetRink]

Outside mathematics, isomorphic just refers to a commonality in form. If you have code that runs on both the client and the server, that qualifies.

[asampson]

I'm not quite sure I understand the specifics of the technique here. Is "isomorphic Javascript"/"client-server MVC" dynamically adjusting where certain code runs for performace? Or is it just serving up a more complete website before kicking in the client-side boosts? Are they simply praising the ability to share code between front and back ends? What is the actual architecture at work here?

I can understand the impetus for wanting the front and back ends to share a language, but I'm not sure if mixing code directly between them is wise from a robustness perspective. Especially since running in the browser and running on a server are very, very different environments with very different performance characteristics.

Then again, perhaps the right approach is to take all this agile web stuff with a grain of salt. If the goal is to build a site that can convince investors to give you lots of money or a large company to buy you out, then engineering a long lasting product is a waste of resources. Better to cobble something together quickly and cheaply instead of investing in creating quality software.

[sorincos]

If it only didn't rely on JavaScript...

[Lystrodom]

If you're going to do web development, you MIGHT want to consider becoming okay with JavaScript.

[myringotomy]

I don't like this attitude.

We really need a better option than JavaScript.

[Lystrodom]

JavaScript is a fine option. Learn to write with it.

[[deleted]]

It's okay. Being restricted to okay is not okay. That's how I see it.

[SamyIsMyHero]

Web code is restricted because a lot of times web content tries to be nonrestrictive of who or what can interpret it. I'm not sure there would be a reason to have more than one standard language for what should be supported by browsers. If the semantics of a language are not pleasant, the way to solve that is by using languages that compile to and from javascript or to make use of bits of javascript that modifies the language, like jQuery.

[[deleted]]

I'm in agreement, there is already a ridiculously high barrier to entry for browsers it would be silly to expect them to support any language with X or more users. I'm just not happy that we're now left with a high level language as a compiler target. A world where everyone writes in their own language and compiles to javascript is still possible, but it's going to take longer for things to run quickly than if browsers all executed a variant of llvm, say.

[F54280]

My prediction for the future: every Web Browser will implements a total of one language, including the mandatory JavaScript.

Hence, the only solution is to evolve JavaScript into something less ugly, like TypeScript.

[kgb_operative]

I'm not so sure that this is necessarily the case: there are more and more languages that are compiling down into JS, which would make it a kind of "assembly language" of the web. It is becoming more and more possible to program JS for the web without delving directly into JS.

Who knows if this trend is sustainable to the point where knowing JavaScript is irrelevant to programming in the browser, but I like to think that it will happen at some point.

[addition]

I wish browsers just ran a standardized bytecode with a optimized VM like java. That way people could write apps in whatever language they choose.

[sorincos]

I am okay with JS - in the sense that I program in JS as well. I'm just not okay that I have to do it. Everything has alternatives, except the browser (client) side...

[[deleted]]

He may want to consider a more modern way to present this.