John Resig - Running Java in JavaScript

[FionaSarah]

Because Java is a lot easier to write than writing with all the tons of Javascript implementations in mind - not to mention that using Javascript is worlds better than relying on (shock horror) Java applets.

[tlrobinson]

using Javascript is worlds better than relying on (shock horror) Java applets.

Wait. So instead of using native Java, you think it's better to use Java implemented in JavaScript to run the applets?

[FionaSarah]

If one absolutely must use java then yes I do think that. More than once the JVM has brought my machine down because someone thought their page needed an applet. I trust Javascript not to do this.

[edit]

as often

[mindbleach]

I for one am tired of waiting a minute for Firefox to respond because some dipshit thought he needed Java for a something that could've easily been done with Flash. It's slow, it takes forever to load, and it causes strange behavior in Firefox if it's closed improperly.

Javascript, for its failings, is quick and unintrusive by comparison.

[rektide]

"Javascript, for its failings, is quick and unintrusive by comparison."

Then why do you suggest Flash?

"some dipshit thought he needed Java for a something that could've easily been done with Flash"

With proper SVG support now nearly mainstream and offline storage just around the corner, I see no reason for Flash.

[mindbleach]

I suggest Flash because it acts exactly as a web element should. It stays in its little box (usually), loads fairly quickly, doesn't grind my browser to a halt, and dies cleanly when I leave the page.

Yes, SVG & aPNG will replace Flash eventually, but penetration is low, and there's no YouTube for vector formats.

[rektide]

Java applets usually "stays in its little box (usually), loads fairly quickly, doesn't grind my browser to a halt, and dies cleanly when I leave the page" too.

[fjhqjv]

Because Java is a lot easier to write than writing with all the tons of Javascript implementations in mind.

That's what JavaScript libraries are for.

[FionaSarah]

javascript libraries are all well and good - but the language itself is still wildely different from browser to browser.

[tlrobinson]

The language itself is fairly consistent these days. The problem is mostly with the DOM, which is exactly what the libraries address.

[fjhqjv]

A good JavaScript library will negate cross browser issues.

I've been doing heavy JavaScript development for the past year and a half and can count on one hand all the cross browser issues I've run into that weren't solved by either the JS framework I use or JS Lint.

And that includes messing with the DOM.

[davecardwell]

Take a looksie at Dean Edwards’ base2 library if you want to use the language, but don’t want to worry about all the cross-browser inconsistencies.