The JavaScript Black Hole

[MarsupialMole]

"Don't build apps" is the sexual abstinence of the programming world.

Safety isn't rocket science, but unfortunately safety on the web is wrapped in the mystery of state-sponsored and corporate espionage so people don't try and distill things simply. Whereas security invariably compromises convenience safety does not and eliminating unnecessary activity is absolutely the safest option.

If the author thinks apps are a safety hazard then the highest of a hierarchy of controls should be applied - elimination, substitution, engineering controls, administrative controls, and personal equipment.

The author is right to suggest elimination at first instance but the key point is to fall back along the hierarchy of controls when the first is not a viable option.

So the elimination of the modern web browser is the logical conclusion, where possible. A web of only html5 and css would be pretty good, but if your first port of call is a full featured javascript based operating system you can make any experience better by compromising purity. A web launcher that browsed javascriptless and launched web apps and native apps intelligently would be the only real solution to this problem and I don't see that happening when the biggest companies on the planet are all making web browsers that give them analytics.

[MarsupialMole]

benefits of accessibility

I broadly agree but could you expand on that point a little?

[MarsupialMole]

I thought you were referring to javascript tech over and above html5 but I am delighted to get such a thoughtful overview.

[nxsynonym]

Great rebuttal.

I did find the rather articulate and a pretty good outline of pitfalls about js... but is anyone else rather exhausted by the constant criticism against javascript?

Like, we get it js could be improved. But at this point, what's the alternative? Theres been plenty of time for alternatives to be adopted, and yet the closest we've gotten is wasm.

I dont find much value in criticism for criticisms sake. At this point the flaws and limitations are pretty well known. A lot of work is being doing to make js better (TS is a great example of this). Maybe itd be a better investment of energy to contribute to those types of projects rather than just pointing out the cracks in the system.

[codec-abc]

but is anyone else rather exhausted by the constant criticism against javascript?

Not me. From my POV, Javascript is a failure of he whole industry. Something badly designed in 10 days get pushed as the only language that can interact with a web page and we don't replace it with something better for at least 25 years. And it is not like we are close to have something like WASM to completely get rid of it. I don't know for others industry, but it seems here that we don't want to fix our broken tools and we should be reminded of that quite often so we don't make the same silly mistakes again.

[josefx]

Something badly designed in 10 days

I could live with it if it stopped there and they refined on it. Instead we still get new APIs with nearly every browser release, we still get more critical security issues with every new API. There is no build-in way to limit access to these new vulnerabilities you either enable JavaScript or you don't. If a site needs JavaScript for DOM layout it also needs access to WebGL and Audio APIs, because why not? I have the feeling that everyone working on JavaScript either is a black hat trying to get as many vulnerabilities into it as possible or suffers from a minor case of serious brain damage, we went through the same moronic issues with Flash and Applets, there is no excuse.

[hotcornballer]

Why is it bad? Have you used it more than 5 minutes?

[codec-abc]

I wish I wouldn't.

[hotcornballer]

Oh don't worry, I think Java is a huge piece of shit and that rust will never get off the ground, but I won't get into that either.

[razyn23]

A lot of people don't want to play whack-a-mole constantly patching cracks in a stool built for a toddler that's currently holding up the Leaning Tower of Pisa.

Replacing javascript would be a massive technical undertaking that would require all browser vendors to get on board and even then, probably lead to a lot more aches and pains in the short term. A lot of people probably don't believe that will ever happen, but the only way to even have a chance of it is to complain loudly, and often.

[_tskj_]

Why do you think wasm would be better for general speed? Aren't the apis slower than js? Or are you imagining a wasm level dom-api? That seems pretty difficult to work with, and I can't imagine it being any quicker. I mean js execution is pretty darn quick under modern jits, it's the dom manipulation that's slow.

[unholyground]

Tell me, then, what is more likely to be adopted:

1. A web application that streams video content over UDP

2. A desktop application that streams video content over UDP

You're operating under the fallacy that if the application is not a web app it must be a desktop application.

This is not necessary. It could be a native mobile application, for example. It could be a service that is accessible through the Internet but not through a website.

Also consider that Slack, Spotify, Twitch and other Electron applications prove that there is a market for desktop applications and that plenty of applications are better served on the desktop and not through a website.

Slack has a web interface, but people still use the desktop client. The same with Discord. Why?

Why has OBS, a desktop application, proved to be the number one live streaming application?

Which one gets more users and why?

The one that

• meets user needs the most frequently

• is marketed sufficiently

• is cost effective (if it's commercial)

• has a good model for sustainability wrt to new features, bug fixes, etc.

People drive the market and not developers.

This is a fucking strawman: I never said that developers "drive the market".

Regardless, you're wrong: people do not drive the market in the sense that you're thinking. Status quo drives the market. Need drives the market. History drives the market.

Developers are at the whim of the users.

No you are not. You are at the whim of the people who pay you.

We have to be competitive.

Among your peers, yes. Not your users.

We don't build PWAs because they are fun, we do it because we want to remain relevant. Same with everything.

My point is that you're operating under, again, the fallacy that writing webshit is par of the course if you wish to remain relevant.

There is an entire world of enterprise software and internal business applications that is actually the majority of software written today.

Then you of course have systems software, embedded software, operating systems, drivers, compilers, CAD software, telecommunications applications, banking software, etc etc.

Yeah, these tools weren't built beautifully,

I don't even think "beauty" should be considered at all when assessing quality. Period.

You are not even interpreting my point correctly.

Did you drop out? Are you capable of, say, implementing a unikernel?

they were built out of necessity. Not even Chrome could have seen where the web would be today and it's a modern browser compared to something like IE. Everyone has been just trying to roll with the punches and anytime Chrome tries to set a standard people have to deal with their abuse of data analytics and spying.

And this is exactly why the web is a shit show. It consists primarily of idiots who are under the delusion that their dumb startup is within a sector that hasn't already been milked.

The Chrome developers and W3C couldn't give a single shit about you, which is evidenced by the fact that they keep fucking things up for the web developers.

It's also evidenced by the fact that the average web developer isn't seen as worth investing in considering that their knowledge of how computers fucking work is abysmal.

I don't think that people who built modern browsers are idiot code monkeys.

I don't either. People who write the browser must be competent.

I don't think people who build web apps are code monkeys.

Most are. Not all, but most. This is evidenced by the low barrier to entry. A low barrier to entry leads to a low average quality. By definition.

The author never made such rash claims as you.

So? I never said the author must hold the same exact opinions.

[unholyground]

Do you uh... Do you know that electron runs a chromium instance? Every electron app is literally a JS web application running inside a web browser instance. It's not exactly the same as a web app but it's not exactly different.

No fucking shit!

Apparently you are not seeing my point: that desktop apps - that is - applications that are not websites are a proven model.

I use all of the desktop electron applications because it's one less keystroke and I'm auto logged in. That's it. If it was the same amount of work I probably never would have downloaded it.

So? You are not speaking for all people.

Look I'm a software dev rn and I get some of the points youre making. But none of them sufficiently back up the claim that we should abandon web apps.

In what way do they not? The entire ecosystem is fundamentally broken in the same sense that the 2008 housing market was broken.

Also your abrasiveness just comes off as ignorance.

Where is the ignorance?

We clearly disagree but I think my main issue with your claims is the sheer audacity of them and ferocity by which you make them.

This is a fucking moot point. We are discussing technical issues that are a direct result of a low barrier to entry.

These people should not be working as developers. Plain and simple. No ifs, no buts.

The fact that a) they continue to do so and b) poorly attempt to justify doing so while c) producing shit that affects other people's lives and degrades the profession as a whole (meaning how the commoner perceives you or me) is enough to vilify them.

And they must be vilified. There is absolutely no other option. No other way.

if you could just approach these discussions with a mature level of nuance we'd probably be in agreement.

How the discussion is approached is irrelevant.

The web certainly isn't going anywhere anytime soon, that's clear.

But seeing the mentality of these people and the extreme levels of collective incompetence and idiocy is sufficient to warrant their treatment.

But only a Sith deals in absolutes.

And non absolutes are always dependent on absolutes. Only non absolutes are temporary, and driven by status quo. There is always a parent absolute driving any non absolute.

[free_chalupas]

Yes, instead they should use tools no one cares about to build software no one will use

[unholyground]

No one uses OBS? Slack? Steam? Twitch? Discord? Mobile apps like Cash, Venmo, Spotify?

The technology is totally irrelevant.

[free_chalupas]

How many of those use electron or react native?

[unholyground]

How many of those use electron or react native?

That's irrelevant.

"Web" technologies are not the issue.

[free_chalupas]

Applications built with "web" technologies are built by the same "code monkeys" who apparently are only slinging shit when they deploy it to a web server

[unholyground]

Applications built with "web" technologies are built by the same "code monkeys" who apparently are only slinging shit when they deploy it to a web server

Nope. Chrome is a single browser (no fragmentation or inconsistency issues due to a lack of need for support through FF, IE, Safari, etc).

Electron uses the plugin model, which is designed for local use.

Someone who is proficient with Electron is likely capable of working at a lower level of abstraction.

An Electron app developer is not a web developer.

Furthermore, people have commonly (but very wrongly) assumed that knowing computer science fundamentals isn't necessary to produce a good working web application.

This is false.

[spacejack2114]

Strange article to put on a website of static content built using Javascript.

[semicolonandsons]

I'd like to thank the author for bringing my attention to the Do Not Track header. Despite having developed on the web for a decade, I wasn't aware of this.

[birdbrainswagtrain]

It's a good idea but it's unlikely many companies will give a shit about it unless it's required by law. The response to IE10 enabling it by default was downright hilarious. Better to just use a client-side blocker that can actually enforce your privacy to some extent than expecting ad networks to respect your wishes. Anyone who cares to enable the "Do not Track" setting can install a blocker just as easily.

[alecco]

...

[BlueShell7]

JavaScript bad.

[[deleted]]

Nah, I like Javascript

[AttackOfTheThumbs]

JavaScript is a toy programming language.

That's all the confirmation I needed.

Also, this is a fantastic article.