Thirty years later, JavaScript is the glue that holds the interactive web together, warts and all.

  • Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    67
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 days ago

    Worth the click just to see the Pic of Netscape 2.0 opening Alta vista.

    Definitely had its frustrations, but overall this was when browsing the web was a largely enjoyable experience.

  • hperrin@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    47
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    10 days ago

    I mean, sure, but the JS we write today is quite a bit different than the JS he designed.

    It was also heavily influenced by a number of other languages, and borrowed tons of libraries from them. The entire number and math system is just a straightforward implementation of IEEE 754.

      • hperrin@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        10 days ago

        Yeah, but only kind of. It depends if you’re using the new syntax. Within new language constructs (like classes and modules), code runs in strict mode without having to use "use strict". It gets rid of some of the annoying quirks.

    • The_Decryptor@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      10 days ago

      The entire number and math system is just a straightforward implementation of IEEE 754.

      Yeah, but using doubles for everything is its own downsides e.g. it’s why JSON “can’t” store 64bit integers for starters.

      They did add the BigInt class recently, which annoyingly you can’t use with JSON because it requires specialized handling (Because of the aforementioned issue with JSON).

      (So you “can” store 64bit integers in JSON, the spec just says not to, so people just ignore the spec. You just then run into silent truncation issues with clients that do follow it, like browsers.)

      • ThirdConsul@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        10 days ago

        Safe json handling requires that all properties are stringified anyway and you cast them to their correct types (because json sucks and you can never tell what someone will put in there anyway).

        • The_Decryptor@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 days ago

          Yeah, I actually really don’t like JSON. It looks simple but actually isn’t, that’s a bad combo.

          CBOR is much nicer, but annoyingly they made their human readable debug version of it similar enough to JSON that people assume it’s just a binary form of JSON, it isn’t.

      • hperrin@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        10 days ago

        Yeah, I completely agree. It’s straightforward, but it’s got a lot of downsides. Everything always takes eight bytes. Even if you’re just storing 0 or 1.

        It makes handling numbers a lot simpler in most cases, though, and simplicity was the goal of JavaScript. I just wish there was a better solution than typed arrays.

    • vithigar@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      10 days ago

      Application runtimes like node.js have allowed JavaScript to break containment. Anything could be running JavaScript under the hood now. I’ve worked with FTP servers written entirely in JavaScript.

  • Stalinwolf@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    10 days ago

    The internet and browsers felt so comfortable back then. I was a kid, but I felt like I had a command center at my fingertips. Was like flying a space freighter made from scrap metal.

  • 𝕸𝖔𝖘𝖘@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    10 days ago

    “Bill Gates was bitching about us changing JS all the time,” Eich later recalled of the fall of 1996.

    Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.