<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_01_1548221</id>
	<title>Trying To Bust JavaScript Out of the Browser</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1259683920000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>eldavojohn writes <i>"If you think JavaScript is a crime against humanity, you might want to  skip this article,  because Ars is reporting on <a href="http://arstechnica.com/web/news/2009/12/commonjs-effort-sets-javascript-on-path-for-world-domination.ars">efforts to take JavaScript to the next level</a>.  With the new ECMAScript 5 draft proposal, the article points out a lot of positive things that have happened in the world of JavaScript.  The article does a good job of citing some of the major problems with JavaScript and how a reborn library called <a href="http://wiki.commonjs.org/wiki/CommonJS">CommonJS</a> (formerly ServerJS) is addressing each of those problems.  No one can deny JavaScript's usefulness on the front end of the web, but if you're a developer do you support the efforts to move it beyond that?"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>eldavojohn writes " If you think JavaScript is a crime against humanity , you might want to skip this article , because Ars is reporting on efforts to take JavaScript to the next level .
With the new ECMAScript 5 draft proposal , the article points out a lot of positive things that have happened in the world of JavaScript .
The article does a good job of citing some of the major problems with JavaScript and how a reborn library called CommonJS ( formerly ServerJS ) is addressing each of those problems .
No one can deny JavaScript 's usefulness on the front end of the web , but if you 're a developer do you support the efforts to move it beyond that ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>eldavojohn writes "If you think JavaScript is a crime against humanity, you might want to  skip this article,  because Ars is reporting on efforts to take JavaScript to the next level.
With the new ECMAScript 5 draft proposal, the article points out a lot of positive things that have happened in the world of JavaScript.
The article does a good job of citing some of the major problems with JavaScript and how a reborn library called CommonJS (formerly ServerJS) is addressing each of those problems.
No one can deny JavaScript's usefulness on the front end of the web, but if you're a developer do you support the efforts to move it beyond that?
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30288066</id>
	<title>Re:Why bother?</title>
	<author>znu</author>
	<datestamp>1259658720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>How do you hide or move a DOM object in real time with css?</p></div></blockquote><p>Right now? You don't. In the future? Maybe <a href="http://webkit.org/blog/138/css-animation/" title="webkit.org" rel="nofollow">CSS animation</a> [webkit.org] (already implemented in WebKit).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How do you hide or move a DOM object in real time with css ? Right now ?
You do n't .
In the future ?
Maybe CSS animation [ webkit.org ] ( already implemented in WebKit ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How do you hide or move a DOM object in real time with css?Right now?
You don't.
In the future?
Maybe CSS animation [webkit.org] (already implemented in WebKit).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30286698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30285994</id>
	<title>Re:Better Idea</title>
	<author>marqs</author>
	<datestamp>1259694780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There is COBOL on COGS
<br>
<a href="http://www.coboloncogs.org/INDEX.HTM" title="coboloncogs.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.coboloncogs.org/INDEX.HTM</a> [coboloncogs.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is COBOL on COGS http : //www.coboloncogs.org/INDEX.HTM [ coboloncogs.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is COBOL on COGS

http://www.coboloncogs.org/INDEX.HTM [coboloncogs.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30285764</id>
	<title>Re:Javascript is actually a great language</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259693940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most of your criticisms (aside from the silly exaggerations) aren't about the language, but about the current implementations.  These implementations are designed to be run in web browsers, so there's little need for, or even ability to support these features.  There is no technical reason why they can't be fixed.  It's just a matter of getting the right group of people together to write bindings and interpreters or compilers to do so.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most of your criticisms ( aside from the silly exaggerations ) are n't about the language , but about the current implementations .
These implementations are designed to be run in web browsers , so there 's little need for , or even ability to support these features .
There is no technical reason why they ca n't be fixed .
It 's just a matter of getting the right group of people together to write bindings and interpreters or compilers to do so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most of your criticisms (aside from the silly exaggerations) aren't about the language, but about the current implementations.
These implementations are designed to be run in web browsers, so there's little need for, or even ability to support these features.
There is no technical reason why they can't be fixed.
It's just a matter of getting the right group of people together to write bindings and interpreters or compilers to do so.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284452</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30285446</id>
	<title>Happened Before, will happen again - ServerSideJS</title>
	<author>Kagato</author>
	<datestamp>1259692800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I distinctly recall writing Server Side Java Script back when Netscape had a web server product.  Netscape was really pushing it as the future.  It was slow and lacked features in the Netscape implementation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I distinctly recall writing Server Side Java Script back when Netscape had a web server product .
Netscape was really pushing it as the future .
It was slow and lacked features in the Netscape implementation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I distinctly recall writing Server Side Java Script back when Netscape had a web server product.
Netscape was really pushing it as the future.
It was slow and lacked features in the Netscape implementation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30290176</id>
	<title>Re:A huge pain</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259667660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am amazed that I had to go through so many threads to find this comment.   I would figure this to be a pretty common sentiment among web developers</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am amazed that I had to go through so many threads to find this comment .
I would figure this to be a pretty common sentiment among web developers</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am amazed that I had to go through so many threads to find this comment.
I would figure this to be a pretty common sentiment among web developers</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284488</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30290002</id>
	<title>Getting javascript out of the browser</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259666760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think it is a great idea to bring javascript out of the browser. If they can keep it out too, it would be even greater. Maybe they should just take it out behind the shed and put it out of it's misery once and for all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it is a great idea to bring javascript out of the browser .
If they can keep it out too , it would be even greater .
Maybe they should just take it out behind the shed and put it out of it 's misery once and for all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it is a great idea to bring javascript out of the browser.
If they can keep it out too, it would be even greater.
Maybe they should just take it out behind the shed and put it out of it's misery once and for all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30316574</id>
	<title>Re:Javascript: The Good Parts</title>
	<author>kaffiene</author>
	<datestamp>1259836200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have the book on my desk right now.  I've read it page to page.  It points out the good bits, true, but also some of the very bad things about the language.  It's premise that you can just use the pretty bits and the other bits won't matter at all is a fallacy unless you code in a vacuum that doesn't include other people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have the book on my desk right now .
I 've read it page to page .
It points out the good bits , true , but also some of the very bad things about the language .
It 's premise that you can just use the pretty bits and the other bits wo n't matter at all is a fallacy unless you code in a vacuum that does n't include other people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have the book on my desk right now.
I've read it page to page.
It points out the good bits, true, but also some of the very bad things about the language.
It's premise that you can just use the pretty bits and the other bits won't matter at all is a fallacy unless you code in a vacuum that doesn't include other people.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284614</id>
	<title>Crimes against humanity</title>
	<author>Mongoose Disciple</author>
	<datestamp>1259689200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think it's fair to call JavaScript a crime against humanity -- most humans aren't software developers...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think it 's fair to call JavaScript a crime against humanity -- most humans are n't software developers.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think it's fair to call JavaScript a crime against humanity -- most humans aren't software developers...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30288868</id>
	<title>Actually...</title>
	<author>weston</author>
	<datestamp>1259661900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Inability to perform CPU-intensive computations due to these dynamic types of yours</i></p><p>The dynamic types really don't slow it down that much, and it depends on your implementation. Google's V8 does well enough to run an <a href="http://benfirshman.com/projects/jsnes/" title="benfirshman.com">NES Emulator</a> [benfirshman.com] at comfortable speeds.</p><p><i>lack of threading or any other explicit or implicit parallelism support</i></p><p>Parallel execution is actually pretty easy in a browser context using setTimeout and setInterval, though synchronization is a bit of an issue. But if you really want threads, hop on <a href="http://www.mozilla.org/rhino/" title="mozilla.org">Rhino</a> [mozilla.org] and pull from Java.</p><p><i>no library facilities to modern 2D/3D graphics libraries</i></p><p>In the context of a browser, Canvas actually gives you a lot. But outside of that, Rhino gives you everything Java's got.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Inability to perform CPU-intensive computations due to these dynamic types of yoursThe dynamic types really do n't slow it down that much , and it depends on your implementation .
Google 's V8 does well enough to run an NES Emulator [ benfirshman.com ] at comfortable speeds.lack of threading or any other explicit or implicit parallelism supportParallel execution is actually pretty easy in a browser context using setTimeout and setInterval , though synchronization is a bit of an issue .
But if you really want threads , hop on Rhino [ mozilla.org ] and pull from Java.no library facilities to modern 2D/3D graphics librariesIn the context of a browser , Canvas actually gives you a lot .
But outside of that , Rhino gives you everything Java 's got .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Inability to perform CPU-intensive computations due to these dynamic types of yoursThe dynamic types really don't slow it down that much, and it depends on your implementation.
Google's V8 does well enough to run an NES Emulator [benfirshman.com] at comfortable speeds.lack of threading or any other explicit or implicit parallelism supportParallel execution is actually pretty easy in a browser context using setTimeout and setInterval, though synchronization is a bit of an issue.
But if you really want threads, hop on Rhino [mozilla.org] and pull from Java.no library facilities to modern 2D/3D graphics librariesIn the context of a browser, Canvas actually gives you a lot.
But outside of that, Rhino gives you everything Java's got.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284452</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30291660</id>
	<title>Re:JS needs threads</title>
	<author>Quantumstate</author>
	<datestamp>1259674980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Try looking up web workers.  It is pretty new but is is definitely implemented in Firefox 3.5 and the latest version of Chrome.  I have not used them personally so I can't comment on how well they implement threading but the feature is there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Try looking up web workers .
It is pretty new but is is definitely implemented in Firefox 3.5 and the latest version of Chrome .
I have not used them personally so I ca n't comment on how well they implement threading but the feature is there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Try looking up web workers.
It is pretty new but is is definitely implemented in Firefox 3.5 and the latest version of Chrome.
I have not used them personally so I can't comment on how well they implement threading but the feature is there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30285114</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30288606</id>
	<title>Re:Javascript is actually a great language</title>
	<author>Keeper Of Keys</author>
	<datestamp>1259660880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> It just doesn't make too much sense having a full fledged 2D/3D library in the browser</p></div><p>Actually, it would be lovely. I would far rather code games in javascript than Flash or Silverlight.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It just does n't make too much sense having a full fledged 2D/3D library in the browserActually , it would be lovely .
I would far rather code games in javascript than Flash or Silverlight .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> It just doesn't make too much sense having a full fledged 2D/3D library in the browserActually, it would be lovely.
I would far rather code games in javascript than Flash or Silverlight.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284690</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30287388</id>
	<title>Re:Javascript is actually a great language</title>
	<author>ivucica</author>
	<datestamp>1259699460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It seems people enjoy mixing up low browser's DOM performance with low Javascript/ECMAScript performance.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems people enjoy mixing up low browser 's DOM performance with low Javascript/ECMAScript performance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems people enjoy mixing up low browser's DOM performance with low Javascript/ECMAScript performance.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284452</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30286312</id>
	<title>Re:Why bother?</title>
	<author>nobodylocalhost</author>
	<datestamp>1259695860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, lets give control of the client to the server, nothing ever could go wrong. It's not like making JS into a common service on all clients can potentially open the flood gates for malware like activex did... oh wait...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , lets give control of the client to the server , nothing ever could go wrong .
It 's not like making JS into a common service on all clients can potentially open the flood gates for malware like activex did... oh wait.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, lets give control of the client to the server, nothing ever could go wrong.
It's not like making JS into a common service on all clients can potentially open the flood gates for malware like activex did... oh wait...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30288208</id>
	<title>Actionscript</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259659380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>DUH, Actionscript is way more powerful than JS, and has flash and flex as well..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>DUH , Actionscript is way more powerful than JS , and has flash and flex as well. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DUH, Actionscript is way more powerful than JS, and has flash and flex as well..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30286934</id>
	<title>Re:Script Engine out of the Browser?</title>
	<author>multipart/mixed</author>
	<datestamp>1259697900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Sure a JavaScript engine may have shipped on "every computer ever" but it's been embedded into a browser.<br>&gt; So the next step is to decouple it from that browser-based engine and use it to create local apps?</p><p>Microsoft has been shipping the Windows Scripting Host, wsh, with Windows since like Windows 98 or something.</p><p>It can run JScript or VBScript, and automate ActiveX controls. You can create local apps with full Windows GUI, drag and drop, context menu on the desktop, blah-de-blah. It can even be made to talk DAO.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Sure a JavaScript engine may have shipped on " every computer ever " but it 's been embedded into a browser. &gt; So the next step is to decouple it from that browser-based engine and use it to create local apps ? Microsoft has been shipping the Windows Scripting Host , wsh , with Windows since like Windows 98 or something.It can run JScript or VBScript , and automate ActiveX controls .
You can create local apps with full Windows GUI , drag and drop , context menu on the desktop , blah-de-blah .
It can even be made to talk DAO .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Sure a JavaScript engine may have shipped on "every computer ever" but it's been embedded into a browser.&gt; So the next step is to decouple it from that browser-based engine and use it to create local apps?Microsoft has been shipping the Windows Scripting Host, wsh, with Windows since like Windows 98 or something.It can run JScript or VBScript, and automate ActiveX controls.
You can create local apps with full Windows GUI, drag and drop, context menu on the desktop, blah-de-blah.
It can even be made to talk DAO.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30289904</id>
	<title>ObjectCloud</title>
	<author>GWBasic</author>
	<datestamp>1259666400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Shameless plug</p><p>I've been working on a web server that exposes a file manipulation API via AJAX with an automatically-generated JavaScript wrapper.  What I found is that some kinds of operations really need some form of server-side business logic; so I added server-side JavaScript with automatic generation of an AJAX wrapper.  In essence, I have a form of server-side JavaScript with a transparent RPC system for in-browser JavaScript.</p><p> <a href="http://objectcloud.com/" title="objectcloud.com">http://objectcloud.com</a> [objectcloud.com]
</p><p>What I've found is that server-side JavaScript is still in its infancy.  (My Alpha Server likes crash a bit too much...)  The point, however, is that server-side JavaScript allows for rapid development of applications because it lends itself naturally to a JSON-based RPC system that practically eliminates the complexities of serialization from languages like C, C#, Java, PHP, ect.  This is especially useful because things like database queries can be pumped directly to the browser without having to write lots of data access code.  Likewise, server-side JavaScript lets me quickly write glue code where my server's API would require too many back-and-forth calls; or where extending my server's API is a poor design choice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Shameless plugI 've been working on a web server that exposes a file manipulation API via AJAX with an automatically-generated JavaScript wrapper .
What I found is that some kinds of operations really need some form of server-side business logic ; so I added server-side JavaScript with automatic generation of an AJAX wrapper .
In essence , I have a form of server-side JavaScript with a transparent RPC system for in-browser JavaScript .
http : //objectcloud.com [ objectcloud.com ] What I 've found is that server-side JavaScript is still in its infancy .
( My Alpha Server likes crash a bit too much... ) The point , however , is that server-side JavaScript allows for rapid development of applications because it lends itself naturally to a JSON-based RPC system that practically eliminates the complexities of serialization from languages like C , C # , Java , PHP , ect .
This is especially useful because things like database queries can be pumped directly to the browser without having to write lots of data access code .
Likewise , server-side JavaScript lets me quickly write glue code where my server 's API would require too many back-and-forth calls ; or where extending my server 's API is a poor design choice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shameless plugI've been working on a web server that exposes a file manipulation API via AJAX with an automatically-generated JavaScript wrapper.
What I found is that some kinds of operations really need some form of server-side business logic; so I added server-side JavaScript with automatic generation of an AJAX wrapper.
In essence, I have a form of server-side JavaScript with a transparent RPC system for in-browser JavaScript.
http://objectcloud.com [objectcloud.com]
What I've found is that server-side JavaScript is still in its infancy.
(My Alpha Server likes crash a bit too much...)  The point, however, is that server-side JavaScript allows for rapid development of applications because it lends itself naturally to a JSON-based RPC system that practically eliminates the complexities of serialization from languages like C, C#, Java, PHP, ect.
This is especially useful because things like database queries can be pumped directly to the browser without having to write lots of data access code.
Likewise, server-side JavaScript lets me quickly write glue code where my server's API would require too many back-and-forth calls; or where extending my server's API is a poor design choice.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284880</id>
	<title>Re:Javascript is actually a great language</title>
	<author>Ed Avis</author>
	<datestamp>1259690220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>1. Of course the CPU-intensive parts of an app (compression, encryption, database things like DBM or SQLite) are still in native code and Javascript is just a wrapper.

2. The new generation of Javascript engines (Google's V8, Mozilla's Tracemonkey, etc) are one or two orders of magnitude faster than the Javascript interpreters of a few years ago.  Not nearly as fast as native code, of course, but certainly good enough for a lot of applications.

3. You're right that threading and parallelism is missing.  And also it's true that there aren't enough language bindings to good graphics libraries, though of course the browser itself is a powerful 2D engine for many tasks.  Also, have you looked at WebGL, a Javascript binding to OpenGL?</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
Of course the CPU-intensive parts of an app ( compression , encryption , database things like DBM or SQLite ) are still in native code and Javascript is just a wrapper .
2. The new generation of Javascript engines ( Google 's V8 , Mozilla 's Tracemonkey , etc ) are one or two orders of magnitude faster than the Javascript interpreters of a few years ago .
Not nearly as fast as native code , of course , but certainly good enough for a lot of applications .
3. You 're right that threading and parallelism is missing .
And also it 's true that there are n't enough language bindings to good graphics libraries , though of course the browser itself is a powerful 2D engine for many tasks .
Also , have you looked at WebGL , a Javascript binding to OpenGL ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
Of course the CPU-intensive parts of an app (compression, encryption, database things like DBM or SQLite) are still in native code and Javascript is just a wrapper.
2. The new generation of Javascript engines (Google's V8, Mozilla's Tracemonkey, etc) are one or two orders of magnitude faster than the Javascript interpreters of a few years ago.
Not nearly as fast as native code, of course, but certainly good enough for a lot of applications.
3. You're right that threading and parallelism is missing.
And also it's true that there aren't enough language bindings to good graphics libraries, though of course the browser itself is a powerful 2D engine for many tasks.
Also, have you looked at WebGL, a Javascript binding to OpenGL?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284452</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30287850</id>
	<title>Re:It has potential...</title>
	<author>eabrek</author>
	<datestamp>1259701140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, Java is its father.</p><p>And it will bring balance to programming by killing all programmers!</p><p>Kill Java now!  Before it kills us!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , Java is its father.And it will bring balance to programming by killing all programmers ! Kill Java now !
Before it kills us !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, Java is its father.And it will bring balance to programming by killing all programmers!Kill Java now!
Before it kills us!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284672</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30286076</id>
	<title>Re:Why bother?</title>
	<author>MattPat</author>
	<datestamp>1259695080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oh dear, oh dear. Where to begin.<p><div class="quote"><p>Yeah, javascript isn't too bad. Looking at the syntax for html/xhtml makes me want to vomit though. No sane programmer today would design a markup language that remotely resembles it.</p></div><p>You are, of course, correct. That's why no one uses XML-based dialects anywhere, ever.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Random example: (input type="checkbox" checked="checked"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/)

Why in the fuck would you have a string?</p></div><p>The fact that all attributes in XML (and thereby, XHTML) are quoted removes ambiguity, and avoids any issues with attribute values that have spaces.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Another example could be things having names, IDs, classes seems amazingly redundant.</p></div><p>IDs and classes serve totally different semantic purposes, and names aren't even a part of the standard anymore except when it comes to form elements. Any redundancy that exists is necessary to allow flexibility and semantic correctness.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Then there is anything to do with tables.</p></div><p>Tell me when working with tables is <em>ever</em> fun.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>And formatting has tons of stupid quirks.</p></div><p>Well then it's a good thing that Good Web Developers(TM) don't <em>use</em> XHTML for formatting.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Only way it dodges being the worst language ever is the fact that it isn't really a language.</p></div><p>Well no, it's a language, just not a programming language; XHTML is a dialect of XML, a mark-up language, and a very good one at that. Name me one other mark-up language that's as flexible, powerful, and with as much potential to be extended.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh dear , oh dear .
Where to begin.Yeah , javascript is n't too bad .
Looking at the syntax for html/xhtml makes me want to vomit though .
No sane programmer today would design a markup language that remotely resembles it.You are , of course , correct .
That 's why no one uses XML-based dialects anywhere , ever.Random example : ( input type = " checkbox " checked = " checked " / ) Why in the fuck would you have a string ? The fact that all attributes in XML ( and thereby , XHTML ) are quoted removes ambiguity , and avoids any issues with attribute values that have spaces.Another example could be things having names , IDs , classes seems amazingly redundant.IDs and classes serve totally different semantic purposes , and names are n't even a part of the standard anymore except when it comes to form elements .
Any redundancy that exists is necessary to allow flexibility and semantic correctness.Then there is anything to do with tables.Tell me when working with tables is ever fun.And formatting has tons of stupid quirks.Well then it 's a good thing that Good Web Developers ( TM ) do n't use XHTML for formatting.Only way it dodges being the worst language ever is the fact that it is n't really a language.Well no , it 's a language , just not a programming language ; XHTML is a dialect of XML , a mark-up language , and a very good one at that .
Name me one other mark-up language that 's as flexible , powerful , and with as much potential to be extended .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh dear, oh dear.
Where to begin.Yeah, javascript isn't too bad.
Looking at the syntax for html/xhtml makes me want to vomit though.
No sane programmer today would design a markup language that remotely resembles it.You are, of course, correct.
That's why no one uses XML-based dialects anywhere, ever.Random example: (input type="checkbox" checked="checked" /)

Why in the fuck would you have a string?The fact that all attributes in XML (and thereby, XHTML) are quoted removes ambiguity, and avoids any issues with attribute values that have spaces.Another example could be things having names, IDs, classes seems amazingly redundant.IDs and classes serve totally different semantic purposes, and names aren't even a part of the standard anymore except when it comes to form elements.
Any redundancy that exists is necessary to allow flexibility and semantic correctness.Then there is anything to do with tables.Tell me when working with tables is ever fun.And formatting has tons of stupid quirks.Well then it's a good thing that Good Web Developers(TM) don't use XHTML for formatting.Only way it dodges being the worst language ever is the fact that it isn't really a language.Well no, it's a language, just not a programming language; XHTML is a dialect of XML, a mark-up language, and a very good one at that.
Name me one other mark-up language that's as flexible, powerful, and with as much potential to be extended.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30285664</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30285104</id>
	<title>Re:Why bother?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259691240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't you mean, "because JS is not a particularly 'good' language?"</p><p>You might want to get a better handle on the English language before you bash other languages.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't you mean , " because JS is not a particularly 'good ' language ?
" You might want to get a better handle on the English language before you bash other languages .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't you mean, "because JS is not a particularly 'good' language?
"You might want to get a better handle on the English language before you bash other languages.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284314</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284984</id>
	<title>Your bias shows: You can't program shit!</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1259690640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If you think JavaScript is a crime against humanity,</p></div><p>In other words &ldquo;If you can&rsquo;t program, or if you can&rsquo;t tell JavaScript from Java or Python,&rdquo;.</p><p>The new versions of JS are really sweet. But most &ldquo;web-developers&rdquo; can&rsquo;t even write proper code in the old one. Which is quickly visible, if you enable strict warnings, and force the interpreter to the newest version. Most scripts throw warnings or fail after that.</p><p>I say JS and Python are on par with each other. <em>But</em> they use very different paradigms. JS uses prototypes. And that is what most people do not understand. See it like this: Everything is an object (including functions, which allows really powerful functional programming), everything can be written literally (including objects with functions), and everything has a prototype on which it is based and can be the prototype for other objects/prototypes.</p><p>So you build your object, and then use it as a prototype to create other objects with added functionality or changed data.<br>The elegance of this is, that inheriting and instantiation really becomes the same thing. And in my eyes, the less rules a language needs, while still having all the power, the better and more elegant it is.</p><p>It&rsquo;s crazy how, with the newest version, I can write it nearly 1:1 like I would write it in Haskell! You can&rsquo;t imagine how happy I was, when I noticed that I would practically a &ldquo;scriptable Haskell in the browser&rdquo;. Of course it does not have the type strictness of Haskell. But that is kinda the point.</p><p>It even has regular expression literals.</p><p>What&rsquo;s a bit messy, is DOM. Perhaps because it&rsquo;s a &ldquo;design by committee with no own sense of reality&rdquo; (= no leadership) API.</p><p>Then again, I&rsquo;m all for more languages in the browser. Python, Ruby, Lua, Erlang, Haskell and Java are good candidates. C/C++ and Perl are not. (Perhaps Perl 6 in 2051. ^^)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you think JavaScript is a crime against humanity,In other words    If you can    t program , or if you can    t tell JavaScript from Java or Python ,    .The new versions of JS are really sweet .
But most    web-developers    can    t even write proper code in the old one .
Which is quickly visible , if you enable strict warnings , and force the interpreter to the newest version .
Most scripts throw warnings or fail after that.I say JS and Python are on par with each other .
But they use very different paradigms .
JS uses prototypes .
And that is what most people do not understand .
See it like this : Everything is an object ( including functions , which allows really powerful functional programming ) , everything can be written literally ( including objects with functions ) , and everything has a prototype on which it is based and can be the prototype for other objects/prototypes.So you build your object , and then use it as a prototype to create other objects with added functionality or changed data.The elegance of this is , that inheriting and instantiation really becomes the same thing .
And in my eyes , the less rules a language needs , while still having all the power , the better and more elegant it is.It    s crazy how , with the newest version , I can write it nearly 1 : 1 like I would write it in Haskell !
You can    t imagine how happy I was , when I noticed that I would practically a    scriptable Haskell in the browser    .
Of course it does not have the type strictness of Haskell .
But that is kinda the point.It even has regular expression literals.What    s a bit messy , is DOM .
Perhaps because it    s a    design by committee with no own sense of reality    ( = no leadership ) API.Then again , I    m all for more languages in the browser .
Python , Ruby , Lua , Erlang , Haskell and Java are good candidates .
C/C + + and Perl are not .
( Perhaps Perl 6 in 2051 .
^ ^ )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you think JavaScript is a crime against humanity,In other words “If you can’t program, or if you can’t tell JavaScript from Java or Python,”.The new versions of JS are really sweet.
But most “web-developers” can’t even write proper code in the old one.
Which is quickly visible, if you enable strict warnings, and force the interpreter to the newest version.
Most scripts throw warnings or fail after that.I say JS and Python are on par with each other.
But they use very different paradigms.
JS uses prototypes.
And that is what most people do not understand.
See it like this: Everything is an object (including functions, which allows really powerful functional programming), everything can be written literally (including objects with functions), and everything has a prototype on which it is based and can be the prototype for other objects/prototypes.So you build your object, and then use it as a prototype to create other objects with added functionality or changed data.The elegance of this is, that inheriting and instantiation really becomes the same thing.
And in my eyes, the less rules a language needs, while still having all the power, the better and more elegant it is.It’s crazy how, with the newest version, I can write it nearly 1:1 like I would write it in Haskell!
You can’t imagine how happy I was, when I noticed that I would practically a “scriptable Haskell in the browser”.
Of course it does not have the type strictness of Haskell.
But that is kinda the point.It even has regular expression literals.What’s a bit messy, is DOM.
Perhaps because it’s a “design by committee with no own sense of reality” (= no leadership) API.Then again, I’m all for more languages in the browser.
Python, Ruby, Lua, Erlang, Haskell and Java are good candidates.
C/C++ and Perl are not.
(Perhaps Perl 6 in 2051.
^^)
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30327444</id>
	<title>More than one language</title>
	<author>paxcoder</author>
	<datestamp>1259958120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We never had a battle of user-side scripting languages. I think one is in order, don't you think?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We never had a battle of user-side scripting languages .
I think one is in order , do n't you think ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We never had a battle of user-side scripting languages.
I think one is in order, don't you think?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30316430</id>
	<title>Re:Can your language do this</title>
	<author>kaffiene</author>
	<datestamp>1259835780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lines of code is not how production languages should be judged.  Generally, software engineers aren't trying to type a solution as quick as possible.  There is usually some thinking going on, so the typing isn't the bottleneck anyway.  And then you usually want it to work without side effects and be maintainable.  Languages like Java deal very well with complexity, and when something does fail, it fails early and loudly.</p><p>JS creaks at the seams when you do anything more than a quick hack with it.  The more layers your code has become more places for errors to occur silently - with a code failure happening somewhere else perhaps miles from the actual issue.</p><p>Software Engineers are not generally writing quick, one-off hacks, and this is why the whole idea of lines-of-code as an important software metric is not really all that important.  We write large systems that must be maintainable, extensible, read well and perform well.  Java does that very well, JavaScript does not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lines of code is not how production languages should be judged .
Generally , software engineers are n't trying to type a solution as quick as possible .
There is usually some thinking going on , so the typing is n't the bottleneck anyway .
And then you usually want it to work without side effects and be maintainable .
Languages like Java deal very well with complexity , and when something does fail , it fails early and loudly.JS creaks at the seams when you do anything more than a quick hack with it .
The more layers your code has become more places for errors to occur silently - with a code failure happening somewhere else perhaps miles from the actual issue.Software Engineers are not generally writing quick , one-off hacks , and this is why the whole idea of lines-of-code as an important software metric is not really all that important .
We write large systems that must be maintainable , extensible , read well and perform well .
Java does that very well , JavaScript does not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lines of code is not how production languages should be judged.
Generally, software engineers aren't trying to type a solution as quick as possible.
There is usually some thinking going on, so the typing isn't the bottleneck anyway.
And then you usually want it to work without side effects and be maintainable.
Languages like Java deal very well with complexity, and when something does fail, it fails early and loudly.JS creaks at the seams when you do anything more than a quick hack with it.
The more layers your code has become more places for errors to occur silently - with a code failure happening somewhere else perhaps miles from the actual issue.Software Engineers are not generally writing quick, one-off hacks, and this is why the whole idea of lines-of-code as an important software metric is not really all that important.
We write large systems that must be maintainable, extensible, read well and perform well.
Java does that very well, JavaScript does not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284612</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30295486</id>
	<title>Re:Javascript is actually a great language</title>
	<author>dkf</author>
	<datestamp>1259581680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But then would *you* run arbitrary native binary code off the web?</p></div><p>No, but lots of people do. Witness the vast numbers of idiots who get caught by trojans masquerading as cute cat screensavers or whatever the latest meme is.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But then would * you * run arbitrary native binary code off the web ? No , but lots of people do .
Witness the vast numbers of idiots who get caught by trojans masquerading as cute cat screensavers or whatever the latest meme is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But then would *you* run arbitrary native binary code off the web?No, but lots of people do.
Witness the vast numbers of idiots who get caught by trojans masquerading as cute cat screensavers or whatever the latest meme is.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284690</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30287034</id>
	<title>Re:Why bother?</title>
	<author>Steauengeglase</author>
	<datestamp>1259698260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm inclined to agree. There are some folks who need to lose the "Haha, javascript has no java, its just a marketing term for retards!" mindset. Because I've seen plenty of them working an extra 9 hours a week trying to make a hammer operate like a jig saw.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm inclined to agree .
There are some folks who need to lose the " Haha , javascript has no java , its just a marketing term for retards !
" mindset .
Because I 've seen plenty of them working an extra 9 hours a week trying to make a hammer operate like a jig saw .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm inclined to agree.
There are some folks who need to lose the "Haha, javascript has no java, its just a marketing term for retards!
" mindset.
Because I've seen plenty of them working an extra 9 hours a week trying to make a hammer operate like a jig saw.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30290900</id>
	<title>Snooze, see WSH and ASP run JScript in 90s</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259670960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Where have you been?  WSH and ASP have been capable of running client- and server-side JScript (outside the browser) for more than a decade!  Someone hit the snooze alarm, this is old news<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... wait, it's the ECMA standards group<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... oh, now it matters.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where have you been ?
WSH and ASP have been capable of running client- and server-side JScript ( outside the browser ) for more than a decade !
Someone hit the snooze alarm , this is old news ... wait , it 's the ECMA standards group ... oh , now it matters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where have you been?
WSH and ASP have been capable of running client- and server-side JScript (outside the browser) for more than a decade!
Someone hit the snooze alarm, this is old news ... wait, it's the ECMA standards group ... oh, now it matters.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30290226</id>
	<title>Re:A huge pain</title>
	<author>leptons</author>
	<datestamp>1259667840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wouldn't change a thing about JavaScript.  It is not really as bad as you say.  I doubt you've really used the language much at all.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would n't change a thing about JavaScript .
It is not really as bad as you say .
I doubt you 've really used the language much at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wouldn't change a thing about JavaScript.
It is not really as bad as you say.
I doubt you've really used the language much at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284488</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30285136</id>
	<title>What for?</title>
	<author>Glabrezu</author>
	<datestamp>1259691420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We already have a good number of established scripting languages that fill the niche. What does Javascript brings into this world that makes it interesting to work again on compilers, module platforms, optimizers, etc.?</p><p>The arguments posted in the article about what changed to consider moving javascript out of the browser, are in my opinion, pretty weak:</p><p>* We discovered AJAX: besides doesn't having anything to do with the argument, we might say that more than AJAX, browsers started to be a *little* more standard compliant, so designing complex HTML application became less painful. AJAX is really a so simple thing that I really don't believe is the responsible for our buzzed web 2.0 (besides... we always had iframes). Heavy support for CSS, fixing of layout issues, etc., that's what probably brought our web interfaces as we know them today.<br>* Its included on every consumer computer: Yes, in the browser. You will not use the browser to run these javascript programs, since there are limitations, and for a reason, on what you can do from the browser. Probably, you will need to download a javascript runtime to execute this new javascript programs anyway.<br>* Designers know how to program javascript: And that is why it's in the browser and not running on your server or free on your computer. Have you ever looked at the average javascript source code? People program as if they needed to save every byte on their source code, avoiding white space and having tons of a,b,c variables. Have they never heard of minimizers? And if size is such a problem, standarize an optimized intermediate representation instead.</p><p>What remains is that javascript is cool. That's probably right if you feel cool when you write ugly hacks to make things work.</p><p>And regarding problems with javascript to be used on large applications and not as glue code, I would say prototype programming is one of my main concerns. Weakly typed languages already have the disadvantage of lacking compile time type checking, and the difficulties to perform automated refactoring since you don't know to what a variable will refer. But with prototype languages you also add the difficulty to know what's the structure of an object.. In other dynamic languages you can also do it (ie. changing the structure of a class during runtime), but, being there and doing that, it's a probable road to "WTF is going on" (with exceptions, of course).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We already have a good number of established scripting languages that fill the niche .
What does Javascript brings into this world that makes it interesting to work again on compilers , module platforms , optimizers , etc .
? The arguments posted in the article about what changed to consider moving javascript out of the browser , are in my opinion , pretty weak : * We discovered AJAX : besides does n't having anything to do with the argument , we might say that more than AJAX , browsers started to be a * little * more standard compliant , so designing complex HTML application became less painful .
AJAX is really a so simple thing that I really do n't believe is the responsible for our buzzed web 2.0 ( besides... we always had iframes ) .
Heavy support for CSS , fixing of layout issues , etc. , that 's what probably brought our web interfaces as we know them today .
* Its included on every consumer computer : Yes , in the browser .
You will not use the browser to run these javascript programs , since there are limitations , and for a reason , on what you can do from the browser .
Probably , you will need to download a javascript runtime to execute this new javascript programs anyway .
* Designers know how to program javascript : And that is why it 's in the browser and not running on your server or free on your computer .
Have you ever looked at the average javascript source code ?
People program as if they needed to save every byte on their source code , avoiding white space and having tons of a,b,c variables .
Have they never heard of minimizers ?
And if size is such a problem , standarize an optimized intermediate representation instead.What remains is that javascript is cool .
That 's probably right if you feel cool when you write ugly hacks to make things work.And regarding problems with javascript to be used on large applications and not as glue code , I would say prototype programming is one of my main concerns .
Weakly typed languages already have the disadvantage of lacking compile time type checking , and the difficulties to perform automated refactoring since you do n't know to what a variable will refer .
But with prototype languages you also add the difficulty to know what 's the structure of an object.. In other dynamic languages you can also do it ( ie .
changing the structure of a class during runtime ) , but , being there and doing that , it 's a probable road to " WTF is going on " ( with exceptions , of course ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We already have a good number of established scripting languages that fill the niche.
What does Javascript brings into this world that makes it interesting to work again on compilers, module platforms, optimizers, etc.
?The arguments posted in the article about what changed to consider moving javascript out of the browser, are in my opinion, pretty weak:* We discovered AJAX: besides doesn't having anything to do with the argument, we might say that more than AJAX, browsers started to be a *little* more standard compliant, so designing complex HTML application became less painful.
AJAX is really a so simple thing that I really don't believe is the responsible for our buzzed web 2.0 (besides... we always had iframes).
Heavy support for CSS, fixing of layout issues, etc., that's what probably brought our web interfaces as we know them today.
* Its included on every consumer computer: Yes, in the browser.
You will not use the browser to run these javascript programs, since there are limitations, and for a reason, on what you can do from the browser.
Probably, you will need to download a javascript runtime to execute this new javascript programs anyway.
* Designers know how to program javascript: And that is why it's in the browser and not running on your server or free on your computer.
Have you ever looked at the average javascript source code?
People program as if they needed to save every byte on their source code, avoiding white space and having tons of a,b,c variables.
Have they never heard of minimizers?
And if size is such a problem, standarize an optimized intermediate representation instead.What remains is that javascript is cool.
That's probably right if you feel cool when you write ugly hacks to make things work.And regarding problems with javascript to be used on large applications and not as glue code, I would say prototype programming is one of my main concerns.
Weakly typed languages already have the disadvantage of lacking compile time type checking, and the difficulties to perform automated refactoring since you don't know to what a variable will refer.
But with prototype languages you also add the difficulty to know what's the structure of an object.. In other dynamic languages you can also do it (ie.
changing the structure of a class during runtime), but, being there and doing that, it's a probable road to "WTF is going on" (with exceptions, of course).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30287392</id>
	<title>Re:Can your language do this</title>
	<author>eabrek</author>
	<datestamp>1259699460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Joel is referring to closures.  You can find them in D (compiled), Python (interpreted), or Tcl (obscure, but cool).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Joel is referring to closures .
You can find them in D ( compiled ) , Python ( interpreted ) , or Tcl ( obscure , but cool ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Joel is referring to closures.
You can find them in D (compiled), Python (interpreted), or Tcl (obscure, but cool).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284612</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30285744</id>
	<title>Re:Why bother?</title>
	<author>lainproliant</author>
	<datestamp>1259693880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>A reason that some people feel JavaScript "isn't a good language" is because of the hurdles in developing cross-platform client-side web solutions.  Most of this can be blamed on IE not following W3C standards for things like XML DOM (XMLHttpRequest).  These hurdles are becoming less and less with IE's slowly waining market share.  I used to have a similar opinion of JavaScript: that it was bloated and/or unnecessary.  This changed when I actually began to learn JavaScript, and realized that it was a very elegant and capable language.

Many APIs and toolkits already offer JavaScript scripting.  Qt4 in particular, with its support of CSS style sheets and JavaScript scripting, is a fine example of how web programming paradigms can be used to enhance desktop applications.

I think it would be nice to see JavaScript emerge as a ubiquitous "application scripting language".</htmltext>
<tokenext>A reason that some people feel JavaScript " is n't a good language " is because of the hurdles in developing cross-platform client-side web solutions .
Most of this can be blamed on IE not following W3C standards for things like XML DOM ( XMLHttpRequest ) .
These hurdles are becoming less and less with IE 's slowly waining market share .
I used to have a similar opinion of JavaScript : that it was bloated and/or unnecessary .
This changed when I actually began to learn JavaScript , and realized that it was a very elegant and capable language .
Many APIs and toolkits already offer JavaScript scripting .
Qt4 in particular , with its support of CSS style sheets and JavaScript scripting , is a fine example of how web programming paradigms can be used to enhance desktop applications .
I think it would be nice to see JavaScript emerge as a ubiquitous " application scripting language " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A reason that some people feel JavaScript "isn't a good language" is because of the hurdles in developing cross-platform client-side web solutions.
Most of this can be blamed on IE not following W3C standards for things like XML DOM (XMLHttpRequest).
These hurdles are becoming less and less with IE's slowly waining market share.
I used to have a similar opinion of JavaScript: that it was bloated and/or unnecessary.
This changed when I actually began to learn JavaScript, and realized that it was a very elegant and capable language.
Many APIs and toolkits already offer JavaScript scripting.
Qt4 in particular, with its support of CSS style sheets and JavaScript scripting, is a fine example of how web programming paradigms can be used to enhance desktop applications.
I think it would be nice to see JavaScript emerge as a ubiquitous "application scripting language".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284828</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30287470</id>
	<title>Re:Getting JS out of the browser is a *great* idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259699700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Getting Javascript out of the browser would be the best thing that could possibly happen to Javascript."</p><p>I would think getting javascript out of the browser would be the best thing that could possibly happen to the browser.  The language is painful, like some sort of transvestite it passes itself off as a C type language, but underneath tries to be more like a functional language like Lisp and fails at both.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Getting Javascript out of the browser would be the best thing that could possibly happen to Javascript .
" I would think getting javascript out of the browser would be the best thing that could possibly happen to the browser .
The language is painful , like some sort of transvestite it passes itself off as a C type language , but underneath tries to be more like a functional language like Lisp and fails at both .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Getting Javascript out of the browser would be the best thing that could possibly happen to Javascript.
"I would think getting javascript out of the browser would be the best thing that could possibly happen to the browser.
The language is painful, like some sort of transvestite it passes itself off as a C type language, but underneath tries to be more like a functional language like Lisp and fails at both.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284446</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30287292</id>
	<title>Re:Javascript is actually a great language</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259699040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Variables are global by default, leading to accidental memory leaks, conflicts and various other fun things.</p></div><p>They are only global if you negligently scope them that way. Put your WidgetA variables into WidgetA.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>A lack of namespaces.</p></div><p>Come on.<br>var MyNamespace = {}; MyNameSpace.MyClass = function(){};<br>Try to access MyClass now without going through MyNamespace and without having previously assigned it to some other variable.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Lack of block scope (despite the fact the language has blocks)</p></div><p>I get what you are saying. I agree that it can be frustrating that simply putting braces around some code doesn't create a new scope, but this just means you declare your variables higher up and (usually) use more logical variable names. It has no bearing on whether JavaScript can be used to create non-trivial apps.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Variables are global by default , leading to accidental memory leaks , conflicts and various other fun things.They are only global if you negligently scope them that way .
Put your WidgetA variables into WidgetA.A lack of namespaces.Come on.var MyNamespace = { } ; MyNameSpace.MyClass = function ( ) { } ; Try to access MyClass now without going through MyNamespace and without having previously assigned it to some other variable.Lack of block scope ( despite the fact the language has blocks ) I get what you are saying .
I agree that it can be frustrating that simply putting braces around some code does n't create a new scope , but this just means you declare your variables higher up and ( usually ) use more logical variable names .
It has no bearing on whether JavaScript can be used to create non-trivial apps .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Variables are global by default, leading to accidental memory leaks, conflicts and various other fun things.They are only global if you negligently scope them that way.
Put your WidgetA variables into WidgetA.A lack of namespaces.Come on.var MyNamespace = {}; MyNameSpace.MyClass = function(){};Try to access MyClass now without going through MyNamespace and without having previously assigned it to some other variable.Lack of block scope (despite the fact the language has blocks)I get what you are saying.
I agree that it can be frustrating that simply putting braces around some code doesn't create a new scope, but this just means you declare your variables higher up and (usually) use more logical variable names.
It has no bearing on whether JavaScript can be used to create non-trivial apps.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284754</id>
	<title>No!!</title>
	<author>mafian911</author>
	<datestamp>1259689740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What have you done?! Put it back! Put it BACK!</htmltext>
<tokenext>What have you done ? !
Put it back !
Put it BACK !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What have you done?!
Put it back!
Put it BACK!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284944</id>
	<title>Is it just me or...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259690460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I work with PHP and Javascript/HTML all day long, and for anything beyond simple Javascript effects with AJAX, and some form manipulation, I find it to be an annoying bitch.</p><p>Compared to the simplicity of PHP, it just seems to get in the way of regular web development.  I think it's mainly because you have to worry about casting your numbers to strings and things like that.  I love how PHP lets you concatonate strings with '.' or add things together with a '+', whereas in Javascript, you're always using the '+' for both concatination and addition, and it just gets all ambiguous and tedious.</p><p>In PHP, it just seems to work, whereas Javascript, I spend too much time hunting around, trying to figure out why an event (like a button click) isn't triggering.</p><p>I think if you're developing large frameworks, or just more critical code in general, then sure Javascript's advanced features will pay off for you, but for general web development where you just "need to get things done", I wouldn't want to use it much more than I have to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I work with PHP and Javascript/HTML all day long , and for anything beyond simple Javascript effects with AJAX , and some form manipulation , I find it to be an annoying bitch.Compared to the simplicity of PHP , it just seems to get in the way of regular web development .
I think it 's mainly because you have to worry about casting your numbers to strings and things like that .
I love how PHP lets you concatonate strings with ' .
' or add things together with a ' + ' , whereas in Javascript , you 're always using the ' + ' for both concatination and addition , and it just gets all ambiguous and tedious.In PHP , it just seems to work , whereas Javascript , I spend too much time hunting around , trying to figure out why an event ( like a button click ) is n't triggering.I think if you 're developing large frameworks , or just more critical code in general , then sure Javascript 's advanced features will pay off for you , but for general web development where you just " need to get things done " , I would n't want to use it much more than I have to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I work with PHP and Javascript/HTML all day long, and for anything beyond simple Javascript effects with AJAX, and some form manipulation, I find it to be an annoying bitch.Compared to the simplicity of PHP, it just seems to get in the way of regular web development.
I think it's mainly because you have to worry about casting your numbers to strings and things like that.
I love how PHP lets you concatonate strings with '.
' or add things together with a '+', whereas in Javascript, you're always using the '+' for both concatination and addition, and it just gets all ambiguous and tedious.In PHP, it just seems to work, whereas Javascript, I spend too much time hunting around, trying to figure out why an event (like a button click) isn't triggering.I think if you're developing large frameworks, or just more critical code in general, then sure Javascript's advanced features will pay off for you, but for general web development where you just "need to get things done", I wouldn't want to use it much more than I have to.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30305064</id>
	<title>Re:Javascript is actually a great language</title>
	<author>multipart/mixed</author>
	<datestamp>1259584260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Incidentally, pretty much everything you said about JS engine implementation details is not really accurate, at least not on JS engine in modern versions of the firefox browser.</p><p>The backing storage of Arrays is now a C-style dynamically allocated array of jsvals. jsvals are pointer-sized and can encode either<br>
&nbsp; - bools<br>
&nbsp; - void<br>
&nbsp; - 31-bit signed integers<br>
&nbsp; - pointer to object|string|double</p><p>Additionally, variable references are tokenized with references and accesses to values are cached within a property cache.  This is particularly import when your engine has a JIT; you can't go re-parsing the source code every time somebody uses a variable!</p><p>I've never used canvas (I live on the server-side), but I'd be willing to bet that your 3D code was either bounded by computation or DOM access to the canvas object (which is not a real JavaScript object, it is proxied from the DOM).</p><p>It would be interesting to measure performance of 2d/3d code backed by JS arrays and similar Perl data types in modern versions of JS (v8 or tracemonkey) and Perl.</p><p>And before you start in with a statement like "Well if the DOM is slow then JS speed doesn't matter", re-read the title of TFA.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Incidentally , pretty much everything you said about JS engine implementation details is not really accurate , at least not on JS engine in modern versions of the firefox browser.The backing storage of Arrays is now a C-style dynamically allocated array of jsvals .
jsvals are pointer-sized and can encode either   - bools   - void   - 31-bit signed integers   - pointer to object | string | doubleAdditionally , variable references are tokenized with references and accesses to values are cached within a property cache .
This is particularly import when your engine has a JIT ; you ca n't go re-parsing the source code every time somebody uses a variable ! I 've never used canvas ( I live on the server-side ) , but I 'd be willing to bet that your 3D code was either bounded by computation or DOM access to the canvas object ( which is not a real JavaScript object , it is proxied from the DOM ) .It would be interesting to measure performance of 2d/3d code backed by JS arrays and similar Perl data types in modern versions of JS ( v8 or tracemonkey ) and Perl.And before you start in with a statement like " Well if the DOM is slow then JS speed does n't matter " , re-read the title of TFA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Incidentally, pretty much everything you said about JS engine implementation details is not really accurate, at least not on JS engine in modern versions of the firefox browser.The backing storage of Arrays is now a C-style dynamically allocated array of jsvals.
jsvals are pointer-sized and can encode either
  - bools
  - void
  - 31-bit signed integers
  - pointer to object|string|doubleAdditionally, variable references are tokenized with references and accesses to values are cached within a property cache.
This is particularly import when your engine has a JIT; you can't go re-parsing the source code every time somebody uses a variable!I've never used canvas (I live on the server-side), but I'd be willing to bet that your 3D code was either bounded by computation or DOM access to the canvas object (which is not a real JavaScript object, it is proxied from the DOM).It would be interesting to measure performance of 2d/3d code backed by JS arrays and similar Perl data types in modern versions of JS (v8 or tracemonkey) and Perl.And before you start in with a statement like "Well if the DOM is slow then JS speed doesn't matter", re-read the title of TFA.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284872</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30290640</id>
	<title>Re:Javascript is actually a great language</title>
	<author>hobo sapiens</author>
	<datestamp>1259669820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You don't get it.  Who would use javascript to do what you describe?</p><p>It's like calling a screwdriver a useless tool simply because it's not an arc welder.</p><p>Use javascript for what it's for and it excels.  Attempts have been made to use javascript on the server (see Aptana's Jaxer) and if there was a good server for it, I would consider using instead of PHP.</p><p>Not everything needs to be Java, C#, or C++.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't get it .
Who would use javascript to do what you describe ? It 's like calling a screwdriver a useless tool simply because it 's not an arc welder.Use javascript for what it 's for and it excels .
Attempts have been made to use javascript on the server ( see Aptana 's Jaxer ) and if there was a good server for it , I would consider using instead of PHP.Not everything needs to be Java , C # , or C + + .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't get it.
Who would use javascript to do what you describe?It's like calling a screwdriver a useless tool simply because it's not an arc welder.Use javascript for what it's for and it excels.
Attempts have been made to use javascript on the server (see Aptana's Jaxer) and if there was a good server for it, I would consider using instead of PHP.Not everything needs to be Java, C#, or C++.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284452</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30289796</id>
	<title>No. Really, No.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259666040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This thread will bring out all the "The language is beautiful and misunderstood" comments, and whilst there is some sympathy with that sentiment, the basic fact remains - people still struggle with it. Look at the crap the current generation of web-dev-tards produce - no matter how much they speed up the JS engines, the cruftiness of the code, and the fact people program with it like it was C, means more suckage in our day-to-day experience of all things Javascript.</p><p>That is all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This thread will bring out all the " The language is beautiful and misunderstood " comments , and whilst there is some sympathy with that sentiment , the basic fact remains - people still struggle with it .
Look at the crap the current generation of web-dev-tards produce - no matter how much they speed up the JS engines , the cruftiness of the code , and the fact people program with it like it was C , means more suckage in our day-to-day experience of all things Javascript.That is all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This thread will bring out all the "The language is beautiful and misunderstood" comments, and whilst there is some sympathy with that sentiment, the basic fact remains - people still struggle with it.
Look at the crap the current generation of web-dev-tards produce - no matter how much they speed up the JS engines, the cruftiness of the code, and the fact people program with it like it was C, means more suckage in our day-to-day experience of all things Javascript.That is all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284954</id>
	<title>Re:Javascript is actually a great language</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259690520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Perhaps it's a great language, but it reduced modern Core i7 computers to performance of a 486, negating 15 years of computing revolution.</p></div><p>Actually of the scripting languages, JavaScript is one of the most optimizable.  In particular everything-is-float lets interpreters and JITs have a simple fallback mode when they don't know if the value is an int or if it will overflow.  They can also use fpu registers to store values, and interleave fpu and int operations.</p><p>For instance if you have like in Python an int32, unlimited precision decimals, complex, float that's 4 completely separate representations for 16 combinations of interactions for most math operators, which basically means a vtable-style indirect function call that can't be avoided unless all the types are known in advance.  It also means in a complex formula changing any variable's type means the actual machine code has to change, whereas javascript can just convert the type to a float beforehand and use the same compiled code.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps it 's a great language , but it reduced modern Core i7 computers to performance of a 486 , negating 15 years of computing revolution.Actually of the scripting languages , JavaScript is one of the most optimizable .
In particular everything-is-float lets interpreters and JITs have a simple fallback mode when they do n't know if the value is an int or if it will overflow .
They can also use fpu registers to store values , and interleave fpu and int operations.For instance if you have like in Python an int32 , unlimited precision decimals , complex , float that 's 4 completely separate representations for 16 combinations of interactions for most math operators , which basically means a vtable-style indirect function call that ca n't be avoided unless all the types are known in advance .
It also means in a complex formula changing any variable 's type means the actual machine code has to change , whereas javascript can just convert the type to a float beforehand and use the same compiled code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps it's a great language, but it reduced modern Core i7 computers to performance of a 486, negating 15 years of computing revolution.Actually of the scripting languages, JavaScript is one of the most optimizable.
In particular everything-is-float lets interpreters and JITs have a simple fallback mode when they don't know if the value is an int or if it will overflow.
They can also use fpu registers to store values, and interleave fpu and int operations.For instance if you have like in Python an int32, unlimited precision decimals, complex, float that's 4 completely separate representations for 16 combinations of interactions for most math operators, which basically means a vtable-style indirect function call that can't be avoided unless all the types are known in advance.
It also means in a complex formula changing any variable's type means the actual machine code has to change, whereas javascript can just convert the type to a float beforehand and use the same compiled code.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284452</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284446</id>
	<title>Getting JS out of the browser is a *great* idea.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259688420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Javascript <em>is</em> a beautiful, elegant, small and generally well-formed language. It has a couple of warts, but what language doesn't.</p><p>However, the way that Javascript interacts with web browsers, web pages and all other things web-like is a disgusting, crufty, bloated piece of shit. The DOM bindings are horrible, as far as they go, and they're woefully incomplete. The browser deficiencies in their implementations of the DOM bindings, and the browser-specific work-arounds needed to circumvent said deficiencies, are Lovecraftian nightmares.</p><p>(The <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/obsolete.html#other-elements-attributes-and-apis" title="w3.org">willful violation of the javascript object model for document.all in HTML5</a> [w3.org] (see bottom of page) is one particularly nasty example of what the web has done/is doing to Javascript. If you know the JS object model well, think about what that violation really entails, and what it would take to write that special case into a JS engine, for one particular property, of one particular object, <em>if</em> you happen to be running in a particular environment (browser))</p><p>Getting Javascript out of the browser would be the best thing that could possibly happen to Javascript.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Javascript is a beautiful , elegant , small and generally well-formed language .
It has a couple of warts , but what language does n't.However , the way that Javascript interacts with web browsers , web pages and all other things web-like is a disgusting , crufty , bloated piece of shit .
The DOM bindings are horrible , as far as they go , and they 're woefully incomplete .
The browser deficiencies in their implementations of the DOM bindings , and the browser-specific work-arounds needed to circumvent said deficiencies , are Lovecraftian nightmares .
( The willful violation of the javascript object model for document.all in HTML5 [ w3.org ] ( see bottom of page ) is one particularly nasty example of what the web has done/is doing to Javascript .
If you know the JS object model well , think about what that violation really entails , and what it would take to write that special case into a JS engine , for one particular property , of one particular object , if you happen to be running in a particular environment ( browser ) ) Getting Javascript out of the browser would be the best thing that could possibly happen to Javascript .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Javascript is a beautiful, elegant, small and generally well-formed language.
It has a couple of warts, but what language doesn't.However, the way that Javascript interacts with web browsers, web pages and all other things web-like is a disgusting, crufty, bloated piece of shit.
The DOM bindings are horrible, as far as they go, and they're woefully incomplete.
The browser deficiencies in their implementations of the DOM bindings, and the browser-specific work-arounds needed to circumvent said deficiencies, are Lovecraftian nightmares.
(The willful violation of the javascript object model for document.all in HTML5 [w3.org] (see bottom of page) is one particularly nasty example of what the web has done/is doing to Javascript.
If you know the JS object model well, think about what that violation really entails, and what it would take to write that special case into a JS engine, for one particular property, of one particular object, if you happen to be running in a particular environment (browser))Getting Javascript out of the browser would be the best thing that could possibly happen to Javascript.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30286304</id>
	<title>Re:A huge pain</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259695800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You are making the same fallacy many others have made:  assuming the sins of the browser are the sins of JavaScript.  Free your mind and see the ECMA standard for what it is, a beautifully simple language with a good deal of power behind it. <br> <br>

Also, before FireFox offered FireBug and a whole slew of other folks came out with other development tools, I realized I could create a message tab (a.k.a. div-tag) I could write debugging messages to.   You could have a simple "button" located somewhere on your page that could hide or show this message tab and it would have all the run-time messages you wanted to see in it.  It works just like a real debugging file would, leaving behind all that pesky alert crap. <br> <br>

As for the Palm Pre, it seems to work okay.  Sure, it needs rebooting once a week, but I think that has more to do with bad programmers than the tool choice.  When apps are going to run day after day all day long, the programmer needs to know all the places memory was allocated so that they can deallocate it. <br> <br>

I use C/C++ where I work every day, but would really like to get back to JS because I think the OO is better, functions are first class objects, named arrays, closure, and run-time modification of object structure. <br> <br>

Here's my only wishlist for JS:<ul> <li>Optionally Typed Objects to force int/float/char types on variants</li><li>Lockable values</li><li>Lockable Object Members (i.e. can't add/delete any more)</li><li>Multi-threading with Mutexes</li><li>Ability to load compiled libraries</li></ul></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are making the same fallacy many others have made : assuming the sins of the browser are the sins of JavaScript .
Free your mind and see the ECMA standard for what it is , a beautifully simple language with a good deal of power behind it .
Also , before FireFox offered FireBug and a whole slew of other folks came out with other development tools , I realized I could create a message tab ( a.k.a .
div-tag ) I could write debugging messages to .
You could have a simple " button " located somewhere on your page that could hide or show this message tab and it would have all the run-time messages you wanted to see in it .
It works just like a real debugging file would , leaving behind all that pesky alert crap .
As for the Palm Pre , it seems to work okay .
Sure , it needs rebooting once a week , but I think that has more to do with bad programmers than the tool choice .
When apps are going to run day after day all day long , the programmer needs to know all the places memory was allocated so that they can deallocate it .
I use C/C + + where I work every day , but would really like to get back to JS because I think the OO is better , functions are first class objects , named arrays , closure , and run-time modification of object structure .
Here 's my only wishlist for JS : Optionally Typed Objects to force int/float/char types on variantsLockable valuesLockable Object Members ( i.e .
ca n't add/delete any more ) Multi-threading with MutexesAbility to load compiled libraries</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are making the same fallacy many others have made:  assuming the sins of the browser are the sins of JavaScript.
Free your mind and see the ECMA standard for what it is, a beautifully simple language with a good deal of power behind it.
Also, before FireFox offered FireBug and a whole slew of other folks came out with other development tools, I realized I could create a message tab (a.k.a.
div-tag) I could write debugging messages to.
You could have a simple "button" located somewhere on your page that could hide or show this message tab and it would have all the run-time messages you wanted to see in it.
It works just like a real debugging file would, leaving behind all that pesky alert crap.
As for the Palm Pre, it seems to work okay.
Sure, it needs rebooting once a week, but I think that has more to do with bad programmers than the tool choice.
When apps are going to run day after day all day long, the programmer needs to know all the places memory was allocated so that they can deallocate it.
I use C/C++ where I work every day, but would really like to get back to JS because I think the OO is better, functions are first class objects, named arrays, closure, and run-time modification of object structure.
Here's my only wishlist for JS: Optionally Typed Objects to force int/float/char types on variantsLockable valuesLockable Object Members (i.e.
can't add/delete any more)Multi-threading with MutexesAbility to load compiled libraries</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284488</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30285670</id>
	<title>Really?</title>
	<author>ZipprHead</author>
	<datestamp>1259693640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This has already been done in a way: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server-side\_JavaScript" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server-side\_JavaScript</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>I did an implementation with Netscape's LiveWire back in 2000 or so.  It was a nightmare.</p><p>Javascript is elegant and IMHO a great language, I would love to see new features and performance improvements, but as far as moving this to the desktop?  Why?  Aren't there enough platforms already?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This has already been done in a way : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server-side \ _JavaScript [ wikipedia.org ] I did an implementation with Netscape 's LiveWire back in 2000 or so .
It was a nightmare.Javascript is elegant and IMHO a great language , I would love to see new features and performance improvements , but as far as moving this to the desktop ?
Why ? Are n't there enough platforms already ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This has already been done in a way: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server-side\_JavaScript [wikipedia.org]I did an implementation with Netscape's LiveWire back in 2000 or so.
It was a nightmare.Javascript is elegant and IMHO a great language, I would love to see new features and performance improvements, but as far as moving this to the desktop?
Why?  Aren't there enough platforms already?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30286316</id>
	<title>Re:A huge pain</title>
	<author>Daishiman</author>
	<datestamp>1259695860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're confusing a variety of unrelated things here. Javascript works fine in every browser that implements standards accordingly (that is, every browser with the exception of IE 6, 7 and 8). The language is not only consistent across browser, it's actually implementing some really interesting features such as <a href="https://developer.mozilla.org/en/New\_in\_JavaScript\_1.7#Array\_comprehensions" title="mozilla.org">list comprehension</a> [mozilla.org], <a href="https://developer.mozilla.org/en/New\_in\_JavaScript\_1.7#Generators" title="mozilla.org">generators</a> [mozilla.org], and <a href="https://developer.mozilla.org/en/New\_in\_JavaScript\_1.7#Block\_scope\_with\_let" title="mozilla.org">block scoping</a> [mozilla.org].</p><p>And I don't know where you get the idea that debugging Javascript is any more difficult than any other scripting language. You can't claim to be a professional JS dev and not have <a href="http://www.getfirebug.com/" title="getfirebug.com">heard</a> [getfirebug.com] of <a href="http://www.aptana.com/" title="aptana.com">some</a> [aptana.com] <a href="ttp:wwwjslintcomlinthtml" title="ttp">tools</a> [ttp].</p><p>Oh, and as a scripting language, it is one of the <a href="http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u64/benchmark.php?test=all&amp;lang=v8&amp;lang2=python&amp;box=1" title="debian.org">fastest</a> [debian.org] dynamically typed languages available, in the same league as SmallTalk and Lua. The fact that Palm developers obviously used the wrong tool for the wrong job does not in any way detract from the qualities of the language.</p><p>Methinks there's a lot of people that talk crap about Javascript but have never bothered to get the proper documentation and tools. Newsflash for everyone: anyone who does professional Python and Ruby development uses debuggers and text editors specifically for that job. Just because JS runs on the browser doesn't mean it doesn't need the same level of attention.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're confusing a variety of unrelated things here .
Javascript works fine in every browser that implements standards accordingly ( that is , every browser with the exception of IE 6 , 7 and 8 ) .
The language is not only consistent across browser , it 's actually implementing some really interesting features such as list comprehension [ mozilla.org ] , generators [ mozilla.org ] , and block scoping [ mozilla.org ] .And I do n't know where you get the idea that debugging Javascript is any more difficult than any other scripting language .
You ca n't claim to be a professional JS dev and not have heard [ getfirebug.com ] of some [ aptana.com ] tools [ ttp ] .Oh , and as a scripting language , it is one of the fastest [ debian.org ] dynamically typed languages available , in the same league as SmallTalk and Lua .
The fact that Palm developers obviously used the wrong tool for the wrong job does not in any way detract from the qualities of the language.Methinks there 's a lot of people that talk crap about Javascript but have never bothered to get the proper documentation and tools .
Newsflash for everyone : anyone who does professional Python and Ruby development uses debuggers and text editors specifically for that job .
Just because JS runs on the browser does n't mean it does n't need the same level of attention .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're confusing a variety of unrelated things here.
Javascript works fine in every browser that implements standards accordingly (that is, every browser with the exception of IE 6, 7 and 8).
The language is not only consistent across browser, it's actually implementing some really interesting features such as list comprehension [mozilla.org], generators [mozilla.org], and block scoping [mozilla.org].And I don't know where you get the idea that debugging Javascript is any more difficult than any other scripting language.
You can't claim to be a professional JS dev and not have heard [getfirebug.com] of some [aptana.com] tools [ttp].Oh, and as a scripting language, it is one of the fastest [debian.org] dynamically typed languages available, in the same league as SmallTalk and Lua.
The fact that Palm developers obviously used the wrong tool for the wrong job does not in any way detract from the qualities of the language.Methinks there's a lot of people that talk crap about Javascript but have never bothered to get the proper documentation and tools.
Newsflash for everyone: anyone who does professional Python and Ruby development uses debuggers and text editors specifically for that job.
Just because JS runs on the browser doesn't mean it doesn't need the same level of attention.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284488</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284964</id>
	<title>wrong way of thinking about the issue</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1259690580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the browser is the os. or rather, the browser will become the os. anything and everything of any value to 99\% of us in the modern internet-centered world will be interacted with through the browser</p><p>so instead of talking about jailbreaking javascript, the more relevant subject should be jailbreaking the browser. such that when joe user turns on his computer in 2015, he gets a browser, and only a browser, and nothing but a browser. native javascript implementation then continues merrily chugging along in the browser, as it always has, otherwise completely oblivious to the fact that it is now the only game in town</p><p>note that i'm talking about the computer using experience for the average user. please don't object to my depiction of this scenario from the point of view of the exotic user blocks that plenty of slashdot readers belong to, but don't describe the reality of computer use for the average user</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the browser is the os .
or rather , the browser will become the os .
anything and everything of any value to 99 \ % of us in the modern internet-centered world will be interacted with through the browserso instead of talking about jailbreaking javascript , the more relevant subject should be jailbreaking the browser .
such that when joe user turns on his computer in 2015 , he gets a browser , and only a browser , and nothing but a browser .
native javascript implementation then continues merrily chugging along in the browser , as it always has , otherwise completely oblivious to the fact that it is now the only game in townnote that i 'm talking about the computer using experience for the average user .
please do n't object to my depiction of this scenario from the point of view of the exotic user blocks that plenty of slashdot readers belong to , but do n't describe the reality of computer use for the average user</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the browser is the os.
or rather, the browser will become the os.
anything and everything of any value to 99\% of us in the modern internet-centered world will be interacted with through the browserso instead of talking about jailbreaking javascript, the more relevant subject should be jailbreaking the browser.
such that when joe user turns on his computer in 2015, he gets a browser, and only a browser, and nothing but a browser.
native javascript implementation then continues merrily chugging along in the browser, as it always has, otherwise completely oblivious to the fact that it is now the only game in townnote that i'm talking about the computer using experience for the average user.
please don't object to my depiction of this scenario from the point of view of the exotic user blocks that plenty of slashdot readers belong to, but don't describe the reality of computer use for the average user</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30286726</id>
	<title>It's already being used outside the browser</title>
	<author>SCHecklerX</author>
	<datestamp>1259697240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Palm's WebOS.  I'd prefer perl there, but it is what it is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Palm 's WebOS .
I 'd prefer perl there , but it is what it is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Palm's WebOS.
I'd prefer perl there, but it is what it is.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30288004</id>
	<title>Re:Why bother?</title>
	<author>ShieldW0lf</author>
	<datestamp>1259658540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><tt>How do you hide or move a DOM object in real time with css? For example how do you do this with css<br>(jquery example)<br><br>$("p").click(function () { $("p").fadeOut("slow"); });<br><br>I wondered that myself when attempting to put dynamic effects in a myspace page.&nbsp; They strip out any script you put in, but they leave css alone.&nbsp; This is what I used:<br><br>&lt; style &gt;<br><br>.leftthumbnail span{<br>position: absolute;<br>top: 0px;<br>left: -1000px;<br>visibility: hidden;<br>text-decoration: none;<br>}<br><br>.leftthumbnail span img{<br>border-width: 0;<br>padding: 2px;<br>}<br><br>.leftthumbnail:hover span{<br>visibility: visible;<br>left: 120px;<br>}<br><br>.rightthumbnail span{<br>position: absolute;<br>top: 0px;<br>right: 10000px;<br>visibility: hidden;<br>text-decoration: none;<br>}<br><br>.rightthumbnail span img{<br>border-width: 0;<br>padding: 2px;<br>}<br><br>.rightthumbnail:hover span{<br>visibility: visible;<br>right: 120px;<br>}<br><br>&lt; / style &gt;<br><br>&lt; div style="position: absolute; top: 200px; left: 10px; width: 100px;" &gt;<br>&lt; a class="leftthumbnail" href="http://www.myspace.com" &gt;<br>&lt; img width="100" src="http://path.to.your.first/pic.jpg" border="0"&nbsp;<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/&gt;<br>&lt; span &gt;&lt; img width="400" src="http://path.to.your.first/pic.jpg"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/&gt;&lt; / span &gt;<br>&lt; / a&gt;<br>&lt; a class="leftthumbnail" href="http://www.myspace.com" &gt;<br>&lt; img width="100" src="http://path.to.your.second/pic.jpg" border="0"&nbsp;<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/&gt;<br>&lt; span &gt;&lt; img width="400" src="http://path.to.your.second/pic.jpg"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/&gt;&lt; / span &gt;<br>&lt; / a&gt;<br>&lt; / div&gt;<br><br>&lt; div style="position: absolute; top: 200px; right: 10px; width: 100px;" &gt;<br>&lt; a class="rightthumbnail" href="http://www.myspace.com" &gt;<br>&lt; img width="100" src="http://path.to.your.third/pic.jpg" border="0"&nbsp;<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/&gt;<br>&lt; span &gt;&lt; img width="400" src="http://path.to.your.third/pic.jpg"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/&gt;&lt; / span &gt;<br>&lt; / a&gt;<br>&lt; a class="rightthumbnail" href="http://www.myspace.com" &gt;<br>&lt; img width="100" src="http://path.to.your.fourth/pic.jpg" border="0"&nbsp;<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/&gt;<br>&lt; span &gt;&lt; img width="400" src="http://path.to.your.fourth/pic.jpg"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/&gt;&lt; / span &gt;<br>&lt; / a&gt;<br>&lt; / div&gt;<br><br>What this is doing is taking advantage of the CSS hover selector for the anchor (link) tag to adjust the style of the span tag contained within.&nbsp; That span contains our large images, which are shunted way off to the left of the screen out of sight when you're not hovering over the link and are positioned on screen when you are hovering over the link.&nbsp; You can use this to generate quite a selection of effects if you're creative.<br></tt></htmltext>
<tokenext>How do you hide or move a DOM object in real time with css ?
For example how do you do this with css ( jquery example ) $ ( " p " ) .click ( function ( ) { $ ( " p " ) .fadeOut ( " slow " ) ; } ) ; I wondered that myself when attempting to put dynamic effects in a myspace page.   They strip out any script you put in , but they leave css alone.   This is what I used : .leftthumbnail span { position : absolute ; top : 0px ; left : -1000px ; visibility : hidden ; text-decoration : none ; } .leftthumbnail span img { border-width : 0 ; padding : 2px ; } .leftthumbnail : hover span { visibility : visible ; left : 120px ; } .rightthumbnail span { position : absolute ; top : 0px ; right : 10000px ; visibility : hidden ; text-decoration : none ; } .rightthumbnail span img { border-width : 0 ; padding : 2px ; } .rightthumbnail : hover span { visibility : visible ; right : 120px ; } / &gt; / &gt; / &gt; / &gt; / &gt; / &gt; / &gt; / &gt; What this is doing is taking advantage of the CSS hover selector for the anchor ( link ) tag to adjust the style of the span tag contained within.   That span contains our large images , which are shunted way off to the left of the screen out of sight when you 're not hovering over the link and are positioned on screen when you are hovering over the link.   You can use this to generate quite a selection of effects if you 're creative .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How do you hide or move a DOM object in real time with css?
For example how do you do this with css(jquery example)$("p").click(function () { $("p").fadeOut("slow"); });I wondered that myself when attempting to put dynamic effects in a myspace page.  They strip out any script you put in, but they leave css alone.  This is what I used:.leftthumbnail span{position: absolute;top: 0px;left: -1000px;visibility: hidden;text-decoration: none;}.leftthumbnail span img{border-width: 0;padding: 2px;}.leftthumbnail:hover span{visibility: visible;left: 120px;}.rightthumbnail span{position: absolute;top: 0px;right: 10000px;visibility: hidden;text-decoration: none;}.rightthumbnail span img{border-width: 0;padding: 2px;}.rightthumbnail:hover span{visibility: visible;right: 120px;} /&gt; /&gt; /&gt; /&gt; /&gt; /&gt; /&gt; /&gt;What this is doing is taking advantage of the CSS hover selector for the anchor (link) tag to adjust the style of the span tag contained within.  That span contains our large images, which are shunted way off to the left of the screen out of sight when you're not hovering over the link and are positioned on screen when you are hovering over the link.  You can use this to generate quite a selection of effects if you're creative.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30286698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284440</id>
	<title>JavaScript should stay in its niche</title>
	<author>CodeBuster</author>
	<datestamp>1259688360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>While JavaScript has a good thing going with the web scripting niche, it has a <i>long</i> road to catch up with established players in the heavyweight "everything and the kitchen sink" language category currently filled by C# and Java. It is very difficult to see mainstream platform developers selecting JavaScript as their general purpose language in favor of C#, Java, or even C or objective C (for the Linux and Mac developers respectively). JavaScript would do better to reduce its footprint and burnish its credentials as a web scripting language because that is what we need it to be; after all, we already have good languages in the general purpose category that are NOT suitable for web scripting.</htmltext>
<tokenext>While JavaScript has a good thing going with the web scripting niche , it has a long road to catch up with established players in the heavyweight " everything and the kitchen sink " language category currently filled by C # and Java .
It is very difficult to see mainstream platform developers selecting JavaScript as their general purpose language in favor of C # , Java , or even C or objective C ( for the Linux and Mac developers respectively ) .
JavaScript would do better to reduce its footprint and burnish its credentials as a web scripting language because that is what we need it to be ; after all , we already have good languages in the general purpose category that are NOT suitable for web scripting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While JavaScript has a good thing going with the web scripting niche, it has a long road to catch up with established players in the heavyweight "everything and the kitchen sink" language category currently filled by C# and Java.
It is very difficult to see mainstream platform developers selecting JavaScript as their general purpose language in favor of C#, Java, or even C or objective C (for the Linux and Mac developers respectively).
JavaScript would do better to reduce its footprint and burnish its credentials as a web scripting language because that is what we need it to be; after all, we already have good languages in the general purpose category that are NOT suitable for web scripting.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284702</id>
	<title>Re:Why bother?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259689500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes lets put all the work on the server. The server should handle all formatting and every single error check and lets wait for the server to respond and reload the entire page to say something is wrong.  Lets not have the ability to hide or move objects, because we need to reload the page over and over and over again... Never mind CPUs are Really fast and the standard Desktop has ton of memory.  Lets fill up the slower bandwidth with reloading the same information over again.</p><p>Sorry your post is screaming, I am not comfortable with JavaScript and it is effecting my 7337 status. So I will insult it so I can seem like I am skilled programmer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes lets put all the work on the server .
The server should handle all formatting and every single error check and lets wait for the server to respond and reload the entire page to say something is wrong .
Lets not have the ability to hide or move objects , because we need to reload the page over and over and over again... Never mind CPUs are Really fast and the standard Desktop has ton of memory .
Lets fill up the slower bandwidth with reloading the same information over again.Sorry your post is screaming , I am not comfortable with JavaScript and it is effecting my 7337 status .
So I will insult it so I can seem like I am skilled programmer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes lets put all the work on the server.
The server should handle all formatting and every single error check and lets wait for the server to respond and reload the entire page to say something is wrong.
Lets not have the ability to hide or move objects, because we need to reload the page over and over and over again... Never mind CPUs are Really fast and the standard Desktop has ton of memory.
Lets fill up the slower bandwidth with reloading the same information over again.Sorry your post is screaming, I am not comfortable with JavaScript and it is effecting my 7337 status.
So I will insult it so I can seem like I am skilled programmer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284314</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30287466</id>
	<title>Re:A huge pain</title>
	<author>Quiet\_Desperation</author>
	<datestamp>1259699700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They use this JS crap at my company for training materials. What could be simple HTML links are giant Javascript functions that frequently just sit there inert when you click them. Reload the page and suddenly they work. It's hit or miss, and the same code can act differently in the same browser from moment to moment. It's also a major reason this company is still shackled to IE6.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They use this JS crap at my company for training materials .
What could be simple HTML links are giant Javascript functions that frequently just sit there inert when you click them .
Reload the page and suddenly they work .
It 's hit or miss , and the same code can act differently in the same browser from moment to moment .
It 's also a major reason this company is still shackled to IE6 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They use this JS crap at my company for training materials.
What could be simple HTML links are giant Javascript functions that frequently just sit there inert when you click them.
Reload the page and suddenly they work.
It's hit or miss, and the same code can act differently in the same browser from moment to moment.
It's also a major reason this company is still shackled to IE6.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284488</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30285316</id>
	<title>Its a great idea! Both P and GP</title>
	<author>nten</author>
	<datestamp>1259692200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do away with client side browser scripting entirely and replace it with applications written in Javascript.  I like languages, more are better.  I don't like the requirement that I have to allow most websites to run essentially arbitrary code on my machine in order to view them.  I know I don't have to go to those websites, but it is increasingly required to view just about anything.  I don't trust my browser to protect me, and I resent having to switch to my virtual machine to browse, and then always having that notion that my virtual machine is probably a pox ridden compromised bit bucket that I should really empty at least once a week.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do away with client side browser scripting entirely and replace it with applications written in Javascript .
I like languages , more are better .
I do n't like the requirement that I have to allow most websites to run essentially arbitrary code on my machine in order to view them .
I know I do n't have to go to those websites , but it is increasingly required to view just about anything .
I do n't trust my browser to protect me , and I resent having to switch to my virtual machine to browse , and then always having that notion that my virtual machine is probably a pox ridden compromised bit bucket that I should really empty at least once a week .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do away with client side browser scripting entirely and replace it with applications written in Javascript.
I like languages, more are better.
I don't like the requirement that I have to allow most websites to run essentially arbitrary code on my machine in order to view them.
I know I don't have to go to those websites, but it is increasingly required to view just about anything.
I don't trust my browser to protect me, and I resent having to switch to my virtual machine to browse, and then always having that notion that my virtual machine is probably a pox ridden compromised bit bucket that I should really empty at least once a week.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284828</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30285726</id>
	<title>Re:Javascript is actually a great language</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259693820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is DOM awful or is it the inconsistencies in browser implementation or is it both?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is DOM awful or is it the inconsistencies in browser implementation or is it both ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is DOM awful or is it the inconsistencies in browser implementation or is it both?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284902</id>
	<title>Re:Getting JS out of the browser is a *great* idea</title>
	<author>lhoguin</author>
	<datestamp>1259690280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Javascript is already used for building desktop applications, the most popular probably being Firefox.</p><p>Many desktop applications already use scripting languages. For example see the following <a href="http://www.pygtk.org/applications.html" title="pygtk.org" rel="nofollow">list of python gtk applications</a> [pygtk.org].</p><p>Nowadays you can easily write the parts of an application that requires high performance in C and the rest of the program, including the interface, in an interpreted language.</p><p>The problem Javascript has to face, though, is that it has very few libraries available for desktop or web applications. And the existing libraries are specifically written for one or the other task. CommonJS would be a common library for all environments and would allow porting code from one to another a lot more easily than it is today.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Javascript is already used for building desktop applications , the most popular probably being Firefox.Many desktop applications already use scripting languages .
For example see the following list of python gtk applications [ pygtk.org ] .Nowadays you can easily write the parts of an application that requires high performance in C and the rest of the program , including the interface , in an interpreted language.The problem Javascript has to face , though , is that it has very few libraries available for desktop or web applications .
And the existing libraries are specifically written for one or the other task .
CommonJS would be a common library for all environments and would allow porting code from one to another a lot more easily than it is today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Javascript is already used for building desktop applications, the most popular probably being Firefox.Many desktop applications already use scripting languages.
For example see the following list of python gtk applications [pygtk.org].Nowadays you can easily write the parts of an application that requires high performance in C and the rest of the program, including the interface, in an interpreted language.The problem Javascript has to face, though, is that it has very few libraries available for desktop or web applications.
And the existing libraries are specifically written for one or the other task.
CommonJS would be a common library for all environments and would allow porting code from one to another a lot more easily than it is today.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284710</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30291150</id>
	<title>Re:Javascript is actually a great language</title>
	<author>emj</author>
	<datestamp>1259672220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually javascript is an <a href="http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u64/benchmark.php?test=all&amp;lang=tracemonkey&amp;lang2=gpp&amp;box=1" title="debian.org">order of a magnitude slower than C</a> [debian.org], but it is friggin fast nowdays.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually javascript is an order of a magnitude slower than C [ debian.org ] , but it is friggin fast nowdays .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually javascript is an order of a magnitude slower than C [debian.org], but it is friggin fast nowdays.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30285988</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30285160</id>
	<title>Re:Why bother?</title>
	<author>pyrbrand</author>
	<datestamp>1259691480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I tend to go by the thickness of  Crockford's  book, vs the  thickness of any "Complete Javascript" book when determining how much "good stuff" the language has.  The truth is it's an accident of history, a tech demo that should never have been released, a baby not even its creator could love (and the Ecmascript 5 group had to tear out of his hands to ensure it remained a compatible language for the web).</htmltext>
<tokenext>I tend to go by the thickness of Crockford 's book , vs the thickness of any " Complete Javascript " book when determining how much " good stuff " the language has .
The truth is it 's an accident of history , a tech demo that should never have been released , a baby not even its creator could love ( and the Ecmascript 5 group had to tear out of his hands to ensure it remained a compatible language for the web ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I tend to go by the thickness of  Crockford's  book, vs the  thickness of any "Complete Javascript" book when determining how much "good stuff" the language has.
The truth is it's an accident of history, a tech demo that should never have been released, a baby not even its creator could love (and the Ecmascript 5 group had to tear out of his hands to ensure it remained a compatible language for the web).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284828</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284554</id>
	<title>Re:c++ is good</title>
	<author>Rik Sweeney</author>
	<datestamp>1259688840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>it's just sometimes, it's a resource hog.</i></p><p>A bad workman always blames his tools</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it 's just sometimes , it 's a resource hog.A bad workman always blames his tools</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it's just sometimes, it's a resource hog.A bad workman always blames his tools</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284260</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30295068</id>
	<title>Re:Javascript is actually a great language</title>
	<author>Nitage</author>
	<datestamp>1259576340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You, like many other posters here, are confusing the javascript language with the implementations found in web browsers. Creating javascript bindings to C APIs and system level routines is as trivial as creating Python or C# bindings - web browsers just decline to provide this functionality for security purposes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You , like many other posters here , are confusing the javascript language with the implementations found in web browsers .
Creating javascript bindings to C APIs and system level routines is as trivial as creating Python or C # bindings - web browsers just decline to provide this functionality for security purposes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You, like many other posters here, are confusing the javascript language with the implementations found in web browsers.
Creating javascript bindings to C APIs and system level routines is as trivial as creating Python or C# bindings - web browsers just decline to provide this functionality for security purposes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284452</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30293128</id>
	<title>Re:Why bother?</title>
	<author>SanityInAnarchy</author>
	<datestamp>1259685420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>When I talk about an object oriented programming language I'm referring to a language that allows you to use the concepts of OOP in a *natural* and *homogeneous* way.</p></div><p>Please provide an example of how Javascript doesn't do this.</p><p>I'm aware that it isn't completely homogeneous in the same way that, say, Ruby is. I challenge you to show me an example of this that actually matters.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't want to write a library and helper methods to write an OO program, I want to use the language.</p></div><p>So when you write C++, do you never use the std namespace? When you write Perl, do you completely ignore the existence of CPAN?</p><p>People have already written libraries that implement many of the ideas of "traditional" OOP, though if you talk to the person who actually coined the term, most of those "traditional" ideas really aren't.</p><p>I think it speaks to the power of a language when whole paradigms like that can be written as <i>libraries</i>. It means that the language is multiparadigm without even trying. And it's always nice to see something you'd think of as a core language feature, even a keyword, but it's possible to express it naturally as library code.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>It's OK if it doesn't has classes, and therefore inheritance does not have a place in Javascript,</p></div><p>This is a non-sequitur. Javascript is built on prototypical inheritance, which does not rely on classes.</p><p>I'm guessing you found that "private" page -- and enforced-private stuff is <i>not</i> a requirement of OOP, by the way -- but you probably found it <a href="http://javascript.crockford.com/javascript.html" title="crockford.com">here</a> [crockford.com], right? Shortly after that link is another -- <a href="http://javascript.crockford.com/inheritance.html" title="crockford.com">this explanation of inheritance in Javascript</a> [crockford.com].</p><p><div class="quote"><p>just stop trying to force it to be something that it was not meant to be (that is a general purpose language to write medium to large scale applications).</p></div><p>The fact that it wasn't "meant" to be isn't entirely relevant. It does explain some of the problems we see with it -- I certainly won't claim it's perfect -- but can you explain why Javascript <i>isn't</i> suitable for medium to large scale applications?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When I talk about an object oriented programming language I 'm referring to a language that allows you to use the concepts of OOP in a * natural * and * homogeneous * way.Please provide an example of how Javascript does n't do this.I 'm aware that it is n't completely homogeneous in the same way that , say , Ruby is .
I challenge you to show me an example of this that actually matters.I do n't want to write a library and helper methods to write an OO program , I want to use the language.So when you write C + + , do you never use the std namespace ?
When you write Perl , do you completely ignore the existence of CPAN ? People have already written libraries that implement many of the ideas of " traditional " OOP , though if you talk to the person who actually coined the term , most of those " traditional " ideas really are n't.I think it speaks to the power of a language when whole paradigms like that can be written as libraries .
It means that the language is multiparadigm without even trying .
And it 's always nice to see something you 'd think of as a core language feature , even a keyword , but it 's possible to express it naturally as library code.It 's OK if it does n't has classes , and therefore inheritance does not have a place in Javascript,This is a non-sequitur .
Javascript is built on prototypical inheritance , which does not rely on classes.I 'm guessing you found that " private " page -- and enforced-private stuff is not a requirement of OOP , by the way -- but you probably found it here [ crockford.com ] , right ?
Shortly after that link is another -- this explanation of inheritance in Javascript [ crockford.com ] .just stop trying to force it to be something that it was not meant to be ( that is a general purpose language to write medium to large scale applications ) .The fact that it was n't " meant " to be is n't entirely relevant .
It does explain some of the problems we see with it -- I certainly wo n't claim it 's perfect -- but can you explain why Javascript is n't suitable for medium to large scale applications ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I talk about an object oriented programming language I'm referring to a language that allows you to use the concepts of OOP in a *natural* and *homogeneous* way.Please provide an example of how Javascript doesn't do this.I'm aware that it isn't completely homogeneous in the same way that, say, Ruby is.
I challenge you to show me an example of this that actually matters.I don't want to write a library and helper methods to write an OO program, I want to use the language.So when you write C++, do you never use the std namespace?
When you write Perl, do you completely ignore the existence of CPAN?People have already written libraries that implement many of the ideas of "traditional" OOP, though if you talk to the person who actually coined the term, most of those "traditional" ideas really aren't.I think it speaks to the power of a language when whole paradigms like that can be written as libraries.
It means that the language is multiparadigm without even trying.
And it's always nice to see something you'd think of as a core language feature, even a keyword, but it's possible to express it naturally as library code.It's OK if it doesn't has classes, and therefore inheritance does not have a place in Javascript,This is a non-sequitur.
Javascript is built on prototypical inheritance, which does not rely on classes.I'm guessing you found that "private" page -- and enforced-private stuff is not a requirement of OOP, by the way -- but you probably found it here [crockford.com], right?
Shortly after that link is another -- this explanation of inheritance in Javascript [crockford.com].just stop trying to force it to be something that it was not meant to be (that is a general purpose language to write medium to large scale applications).The fact that it wasn't "meant" to be isn't entirely relevant.
It does explain some of the problems we see with it -- I certainly won't claim it's perfect -- but can you explain why Javascript isn't suitable for medium to large scale applications?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30285762</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284820</id>
	<title>Great, maybe it will help</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259689980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I fully support running JavaScript outside the browser. I think that will only drive more optimization and fixes. My main problems with JavaScript come from the fact that it is running in the browser and the interactions with DOM and security considerations that brings.</p><p>I really wish the browsers provided more detailed controls for configuring the JavaScript environment so I could tune it to my tastes and kill any naughty scripts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I fully support running JavaScript outside the browser .
I think that will only drive more optimization and fixes .
My main problems with JavaScript come from the fact that it is running in the browser and the interactions with DOM and security considerations that brings.I really wish the browsers provided more detailed controls for configuring the JavaScript environment so I could tune it to my tastes and kill any naughty scripts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I fully support running JavaScript outside the browser.
I think that will only drive more optimization and fixes.
My main problems with JavaScript come from the fact that it is running in the browser and the interactions with DOM and security considerations that brings.I really wish the browsers provided more detailed controls for configuring the JavaScript environment so I could tune it to my tastes and kill any naughty scripts.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30316284</id>
	<title>Re:Getting JS out of the browser is a *great* idea</title>
	<author>kaffiene</author>
	<datestamp>1259835300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>JS does not have 'a couple of warts', it's mostly warts with a few nice ideas buried under them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>JS does not have 'a couple of warts ' , it 's mostly warts with a few nice ideas buried under them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>JS does not have 'a couple of warts', it's mostly warts with a few nice ideas buried under them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284446</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30290568</id>
	<title>Re:Can your language do this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259669520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Can Your Programming Language Do This?</p></div><p>What? Closures?</p><p>C#: Yes.<br>C: Yes!<br>Ruby: Yes.<br>Python: Yes.<br>PHP: Yes.</p><p>Closures are nice, and javascript might have had them first, but they're not at all a unique feature any more.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can Your Programming Language Do This ? What ?
Closures ? C # : Yes.C : Yes ! Ruby : Yes.Python : Yes.PHP : Yes.Closures are nice , and javascript might have had them first , but they 're not at all a unique feature any more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can Your Programming Language Do This?What?
Closures?C#: Yes.C: Yes!Ruby: Yes.Python: Yes.PHP: Yes.Closures are nice, and javascript might have had them first, but they're not at all a unique feature any more.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284612</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30294240</id>
	<title>Re:Javascript is actually a great language</title>
	<author>thirdender</author>
	<datestamp>1259695740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><ul> <li>You'll only have a problem with global variables conflicting if you treat Javascript as a procedural language. Variables created outside of any closure are created in the context of the global window object. However, in your example code, var "b" is never a global because it only exists inside function "a", and would never conflict with any other "b" variable in your code.</li><li>No, but usually you can get away with a Javascript object just fine. Yes, it will be global, but you give it your unique name (just like you'd have to do for a namespace, except most languages that support namespaces will throw an error if some other code tries to write over an existing namespace). For example, all of the jQuery library functions are under the window.jQuery object. The variables and function names are all accessed from that object, e.g. "jQuery.map(...)".</li><li>That's because you're not using a closure. Putting braces around something in Javascript does nothing, so essentially your example code just does "var b =<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..." twice in a row. If you defined a function "c" inside function "a", and defined a separate value for variable "b" inside of that function, it would have a unique value. The cool thing is that Javascript does LISP-like passing down of the variables to called functions. If you defined function "c" inside of function "a", then called function "c", it would have access to read and modify the value of the variable "b". However, if you then define a new variable "b" inside of function "c", it becomes a different variable, which is then destroyed when function "c" ends. Just play with it man, it makes sense and allows for all manner of awesome things when you really, truly understand how it works.</li></ul></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 'll only have a problem with global variables conflicting if you treat Javascript as a procedural language .
Variables created outside of any closure are created in the context of the global window object .
However , in your example code , var " b " is never a global because it only exists inside function " a " , and would never conflict with any other " b " variable in your code.No , but usually you can get away with a Javascript object just fine .
Yes , it will be global , but you give it your unique name ( just like you 'd have to do for a namespace , except most languages that support namespaces will throw an error if some other code tries to write over an existing namespace ) .
For example , all of the jQuery library functions are under the window.jQuery object .
The variables and function names are all accessed from that object , e.g .
" jQuery.map ( ... ) " .That 's because you 're not using a closure .
Putting braces around something in Javascript does nothing , so essentially your example code just does " var b = ... " twice in a row .
If you defined a function " c " inside function " a " , and defined a separate value for variable " b " inside of that function , it would have a unique value .
The cool thing is that Javascript does LISP-like passing down of the variables to called functions .
If you defined function " c " inside of function " a " , then called function " c " , it would have access to read and modify the value of the variable " b " .
However , if you then define a new variable " b " inside of function " c " , it becomes a different variable , which is then destroyed when function " c " ends .
Just play with it man , it makes sense and allows for all manner of awesome things when you really , truly understand how it works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> You'll only have a problem with global variables conflicting if you treat Javascript as a procedural language.
Variables created outside of any closure are created in the context of the global window object.
However, in your example code, var "b" is never a global because it only exists inside function "a", and would never conflict with any other "b" variable in your code.No, but usually you can get away with a Javascript object just fine.
Yes, it will be global, but you give it your unique name (just like you'd have to do for a namespace, except most languages that support namespaces will throw an error if some other code tries to write over an existing namespace).
For example, all of the jQuery library functions are under the window.jQuery object.
The variables and function names are all accessed from that object, e.g.
"jQuery.map(...)".That's because you're not using a closure.
Putting braces around something in Javascript does nothing, so essentially your example code just does "var b = ..." twice in a row.
If you defined a function "c" inside function "a", and defined a separate value for variable "b" inside of that function, it would have a unique value.
The cool thing is that Javascript does LISP-like passing down of the variables to called functions.
If you defined function "c" inside of function "a", then called function "c", it would have access to read and modify the value of the variable "b".
However, if you then define a new variable "b" inside of function "c", it becomes a different variable, which is then destroyed when function "c" ends.
Just play with it man, it makes sense and allows for all manner of awesome things when you really, truly understand how it works.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30285586</id>
	<title>uninformed masses</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259693280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I find the nagative, un-informed, comments revealing. It reveals most of are unaware of current developments and about a decade out of step with modern techniques.

Please all of you, do yourselvs a favour and actually get a clue before responding with general idiocy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I find the nagative , un-informed , comments revealing .
It reveals most of are unaware of current developments and about a decade out of step with modern techniques .
Please all of you , do yourselvs a favour and actually get a clue before responding with general idiocy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find the nagative, un-informed, comments revealing.
It reveals most of are unaware of current developments and about a decade out of step with modern techniques.
Please all of you, do yourselvs a favour and actually get a clue before responding with general idiocy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30285506</id>
	<title>Re:Why bother?</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1259692980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Lets not have the ability to hide or move objects"<br>
Could be CSS...<br> <br>
But yeah, I totally agree with you. The javascript hate probably isn't coming from people that have done web development. PHP is nice but there is a reason why pretty much everyone uses javascript AND php. Were javascript useless everyone would drop it, it would be silly to bother learning it and php.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Lets not have the ability to hide or move objects " Could be CSS.. . But yeah , I totally agree with you .
The javascript hate probably is n't coming from people that have done web development .
PHP is nice but there is a reason why pretty much everyone uses javascript AND php .
Were javascript useless everyone would drop it , it would be silly to bother learning it and php .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Lets not have the ability to hide or move objects"
Could be CSS... 
But yeah, I totally agree with you.
The javascript hate probably isn't coming from people that have done web development.
PHP is nice but there is a reason why pretty much everyone uses javascript AND php.
Were javascript useless everyone would drop it, it would be silly to bother learning it and php.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30292716</id>
	<title>Simpler?</title>
	<author>SanityInAnarchy</author>
	<datestamp>1259681640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bullshit.</p><p>If you do know what you're doing with threads, I'll grant that you can mostly avoid making things <i>worse</i> than unthreaded code. But I'm sorry, I don't buy that threading makes things simpler -- race conditions, deadlocks, corruption due to forgetting to lock, synchronization in general is a bitch.</p><p>Now, if you mean <i>better performing</i> code, I agree -- <i>if</i> you've got multiple cores. Even then, processes are generally a better model -- and certainly in an imperative Algol-derivative like Javascript, it's going to be <i>much</i> simpler to go with some form of cooperative multitasking.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bullshit.If you do know what you 're doing with threads , I 'll grant that you can mostly avoid making things worse than unthreaded code .
But I 'm sorry , I do n't buy that threading makes things simpler -- race conditions , deadlocks , corruption due to forgetting to lock , synchronization in general is a bitch.Now , if you mean better performing code , I agree -- if you 've got multiple cores .
Even then , processes are generally a better model -- and certainly in an imperative Algol-derivative like Javascript , it 's going to be much simpler to go with some form of cooperative multitasking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bullshit.If you do know what you're doing with threads, I'll grant that you can mostly avoid making things worse than unthreaded code.
But I'm sorry, I don't buy that threading makes things simpler -- race conditions, deadlocks, corruption due to forgetting to lock, synchronization in general is a bitch.Now, if you mean better performing code, I agree -- if you've got multiple cores.
Even then, processes are generally a better model -- and certainly in an imperative Algol-derivative like Javascript, it's going to be much simpler to go with some form of cooperative multitasking.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30285114</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30294436</id>
	<title>Re:A huge pain</title>
	<author>failrate</author>
	<datestamp>1259611380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm not sure why anyone would want JavaScript anywhere else. I believe that the only reason why JavaScript is "popular" in the first place is because it is the <em>only</em> option available for client-side processing on the web.</p></div><p>
You are discounting the ubiquity of both Flash and Java.  I could easily imagine you not taking seriously other plugins like Shockwave, Unity, etc., but if your argument is based on what a given person will have installed on their machine by default, you've still got Flash and Java.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>But what truly kills JavaScript for me is the lack of development tools and a solid reference. Debugging JS with an alert window is a horrible experience.</p></div><p>
Douglas Crockford's Javascript: The Good Parts is an excellent reference.  If you go to crockford.com, you can find links to videos of the class where he goes over the content in the book.  Mr. Crockford also provides the JSLint tool on his website.  It compensates for JS's lack of a compiler.  Additionally, debugging with the alert window is an exercise in torture.  <br> If you need to work with JS for a website, I would strongly recommend using the FireBug plugin.  If you can't install plugins, then the very flexibility of JavaScript allows you to override the alert function.  I generally add a div with the id="alert\_box", then add this to your script:  function alert(txt) { var box = document.getElementById('alert\_box'); box.innerHTML = txt + "br/&gt;" + box.innerHTML; }<br>That's not perfect, but it definitely works in a pinch.  Just add an opening angle bracket before br.  I couldn't get the formatting correct<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure why anyone would want JavaScript anywhere else .
I believe that the only reason why JavaScript is " popular " in the first place is because it is the only option available for client-side processing on the web .
You are discounting the ubiquity of both Flash and Java .
I could easily imagine you not taking seriously other plugins like Shockwave , Unity , etc. , but if your argument is based on what a given person will have installed on their machine by default , you 've still got Flash and Java.But what truly kills JavaScript for me is the lack of development tools and a solid reference .
Debugging JS with an alert window is a horrible experience .
Douglas Crockford 's Javascript : The Good Parts is an excellent reference .
If you go to crockford.com , you can find links to videos of the class where he goes over the content in the book .
Mr. Crockford also provides the JSLint tool on his website .
It compensates for JS 's lack of a compiler .
Additionally , debugging with the alert window is an exercise in torture .
If you need to work with JS for a website , I would strongly recommend using the FireBug plugin .
If you ca n't install plugins , then the very flexibility of JavaScript allows you to override the alert function .
I generally add a div with the id = " alert \ _box " , then add this to your script : function alert ( txt ) { var box = document.getElementById ( 'alert \ _box ' ) ; box.innerHTML = txt + " br/ &gt; " + box.innerHTML ; } That 's not perfect , but it definitely works in a pinch .
Just add an opening angle bracket before br .
I could n't get the formatting correct ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure why anyone would want JavaScript anywhere else.
I believe that the only reason why JavaScript is "popular" in the first place is because it is the only option available for client-side processing on the web.
You are discounting the ubiquity of both Flash and Java.
I could easily imagine you not taking seriously other plugins like Shockwave, Unity, etc., but if your argument is based on what a given person will have installed on their machine by default, you've still got Flash and Java.But what truly kills JavaScript for me is the lack of development tools and a solid reference.
Debugging JS with an alert window is a horrible experience.
Douglas Crockford's Javascript: The Good Parts is an excellent reference.
If you go to crockford.com, you can find links to videos of the class where he goes over the content in the book.
Mr. Crockford also provides the JSLint tool on his website.
It compensates for JS's lack of a compiler.
Additionally, debugging with the alert window is an exercise in torture.
If you need to work with JS for a website, I would strongly recommend using the FireBug plugin.
If you can't install plugins, then the very flexibility of JavaScript allows you to override the alert function.
I generally add a div with the id="alert\_box", then add this to your script:  function alert(txt) { var box = document.getElementById('alert\_box'); box.innerHTML = txt + "br/&gt;" + box.innerHTML; }That's not perfect, but it definitely works in a pinch.
Just add an opening angle bracket before br.
I couldn't get the formatting correct ;)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284488</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30289456</id>
	<title>Re:JS needs threads</title>
	<author>jsebrech</author>
	<datestamp>1259664660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They're called <a href="http://ejohn.org/blog/web-workers/" title="ejohn.org">web workers</a> [ejohn.org], in the process of being W3C standardized, with shipping code in Firefox 3.5, Safari 4 and Chrome, with fallbacks possible to google gears on other browsers. Basically they're threads with no shared memory model, relying only on message passing / event mechanisms for synchronization.</p><p>With web workers you can do stuff like ray tracing or interactive video processing in the browser. If you can't see the potential for that in client-side code then nothing I say further will convince you otherwise.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're called web workers [ ejohn.org ] , in the process of being W3C standardized , with shipping code in Firefox 3.5 , Safari 4 and Chrome , with fallbacks possible to google gears on other browsers .
Basically they 're threads with no shared memory model , relying only on message passing / event mechanisms for synchronization.With web workers you can do stuff like ray tracing or interactive video processing in the browser .
If you ca n't see the potential for that in client-side code then nothing I say further will convince you otherwise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're called web workers [ejohn.org], in the process of being W3C standardized, with shipping code in Firefox 3.5, Safari 4 and Chrome, with fallbacks possible to google gears on other browsers.
Basically they're threads with no shared memory model, relying only on message passing / event mechanisms for synchronization.With web workers you can do stuff like ray tracing or interactive video processing in the browser.
If you can't see the potential for that in client-side code then nothing I say further will convince you otherwise.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30286084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30285436</id>
	<title>Already used on desktop</title>
	<author>zdzichu</author>
	<datestamp>1259692740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Gnome-shell, which will be GNOME 3.0 main UI, is written in JavaScript and works pretty well. JS is capable of much more than flashy web site.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Gnome-shell , which will be GNOME 3.0 main UI , is written in JavaScript and works pretty well .
JS is capable of much more than flashy web site .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gnome-shell, which will be GNOME 3.0 main UI, is written in JavaScript and works pretty well.
JS is capable of much more than flashy web site.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30286420</id>
	<title>Re:Javascript is actually a great language</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259696220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>JS has block-scope variables since JS 1.7. Google for "let is the new var".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>JS has block-scope variables since JS 1.7 .
Google for " let is the new var " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>JS has block-scope variables since JS 1.7.
Google for "let is the new var".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30285676</id>
	<title>Re:Why bother?</title>
	<author>FreakyGreenLeaky</author>
	<datestamp>1259693640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Doesn't matter.  Inevitably it will provide more work for professionals to fix the abominations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does n't matter .
Inevitably it will provide more work for professionals to fix the abominations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doesn't matter.
Inevitably it will provide more work for professionals to fix the abominations.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284314</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30285480</id>
	<title>Re:Javascript is actually a great language</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259692920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Javascript is a frustrating language that's gotten too much rep</p></div><p>You are so right about JavaScript's many shortcomings. Someone should come up with a superior system, then have an article done about it, then have that article linked on Slashdot, where intelligent people like yourself can post commentary on the proposed "ECMAScript 5" changes.</p><p>Ha ha just kidding, they'll probably just ignore the proposed improvements and continue whinging  about how terrible JavaScript is, forever, ignoring the latest proposed improvements. Don't ask me how I know, I just HAVE A FEELING.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Javascript is a frustrating language that 's gotten too much repYou are so right about JavaScript 's many shortcomings .
Someone should come up with a superior system , then have an article done about it , then have that article linked on Slashdot , where intelligent people like yourself can post commentary on the proposed " ECMAScript 5 " changes.Ha ha just kidding , they 'll probably just ignore the proposed improvements and continue whinging about how terrible JavaScript is , forever , ignoring the latest proposed improvements .
Do n't ask me how I know , I just HAVE A FEELING .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Javascript is a frustrating language that's gotten too much repYou are so right about JavaScript's many shortcomings.
Someone should come up with a superior system, then have an article done about it, then have that article linked on Slashdot, where intelligent people like yourself can post commentary on the proposed "ECMAScript 5" changes.Ha ha just kidding, they'll probably just ignore the proposed improvements and continue whinging  about how terrible JavaScript is, forever, ignoring the latest proposed improvements.
Don't ask me how I know, I just HAVE A FEELING.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284482</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30285056</id>
	<title>Re:Why bother?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259691000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's a poor Lisp in C's clothing.  Give me LET already!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a poor Lisp in C 's clothing .
Give me LET already !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a poor Lisp in C's clothing.
Give me LET already!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284828</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30285992</id>
	<title>Re:Why bother?</title>
	<author>elnyka</author>
	<datestamp>1259694780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I actually wish JavaScript and other client-side browser scripting would be done away with completely, but JS is not a particularly 'good' language. The only advantage I can see is that thousands of Web developers can now write desktop applications. Is that necessarily a good thing? or will it just lead to more inefficient crapware?</p></div><p>Dude, we get crapware in any language. Have you see the average code churned out in Java, C# or C? What exactly is wrong with JS? It is a good tool for what it does. That people suck at it is another thing. In the last three large projects I've been involved (my tasks on those three have always been back-end work mind you except for Swing work at the present time), three different teams have produced phenomenal work on complex, rich UIs in JavaScript.</p><p>

I wouldn't want to have done that work on Swing. Can be done, but it can really turn into a PITA to get it right and clean. That JS work I've seen has been far more superior in quality that a lot of the back-end and JSP shit that I've had to fix or integrate with in Java. Some of those javascript "web developers" you refer to can give a lesson or two on software engineering principles to many Java/C#/C++ dilettante wannabes who think JavaScript is good for nothing.</p><p>

I mean seriously, I don't even work on JavaScript, but I've seen enough good work on it to really wonder what the hell some of you guys are babbling about. Not a single objective explanation of it, just pure soapbox opera. Furthermore, anyone with enough work experience knows that good software and bad software can (and is written) in any language. Suckage is language independent.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I actually wish JavaScript and other client-side browser scripting would be done away with completely , but JS is not a particularly 'good ' language .
The only advantage I can see is that thousands of Web developers can now write desktop applications .
Is that necessarily a good thing ?
or will it just lead to more inefficient crapware ? Dude , we get crapware in any language .
Have you see the average code churned out in Java , C # or C ?
What exactly is wrong with JS ?
It is a good tool for what it does .
That people suck at it is another thing .
In the last three large projects I 've been involved ( my tasks on those three have always been back-end work mind you except for Swing work at the present time ) , three different teams have produced phenomenal work on complex , rich UIs in JavaScript .
I would n't want to have done that work on Swing .
Can be done , but it can really turn into a PITA to get it right and clean .
That JS work I 've seen has been far more superior in quality that a lot of the back-end and JSP shit that I 've had to fix or integrate with in Java .
Some of those javascript " web developers " you refer to can give a lesson or two on software engineering principles to many Java/C # /C + + dilettante wannabes who think JavaScript is good for nothing .
I mean seriously , I do n't even work on JavaScript , but I 've seen enough good work on it to really wonder what the hell some of you guys are babbling about .
Not a single objective explanation of it , just pure soapbox opera .
Furthermore , anyone with enough work experience knows that good software and bad software can ( and is written ) in any language .
Suckage is language independent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I actually wish JavaScript and other client-side browser scripting would be done away with completely, but JS is not a particularly 'good' language.
The only advantage I can see is that thousands of Web developers can now write desktop applications.
Is that necessarily a good thing?
or will it just lead to more inefficient crapware?Dude, we get crapware in any language.
Have you see the average code churned out in Java, C# or C?
What exactly is wrong with JS?
It is a good tool for what it does.
That people suck at it is another thing.
In the last three large projects I've been involved (my tasks on those three have always been back-end work mind you except for Swing work at the present time), three different teams have produced phenomenal work on complex, rich UIs in JavaScript.
I wouldn't want to have done that work on Swing.
Can be done, but it can really turn into a PITA to get it right and clean.
That JS work I've seen has been far more superior in quality that a lot of the back-end and JSP shit that I've had to fix or integrate with in Java.
Some of those javascript "web developers" you refer to can give a lesson or two on software engineering principles to many Java/C#/C++ dilettante wannabes who think JavaScript is good for nothing.
I mean seriously, I don't even work on JavaScript, but I've seen enough good work on it to really wonder what the hell some of you guys are babbling about.
Not a single objective explanation of it, just pure soapbox opera.
Furthermore, anyone with enough work experience knows that good software and bad software can (and is written) in any language.
Suckage is language independent.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284314</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30286308</id>
	<title>Re:Why bother?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259695800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Firefox supports LET.  Check it:  https://developer.mozilla.org/en/New\_in\_JavaScript\_1.7#Block\_scope\_with\_let</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Firefox supports LET .
Check it : https : //developer.mozilla.org/en/New \ _in \ _JavaScript \ _1.7 # Block \ _scope \ _with \ _let</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Firefox supports LET.
Check it:  https://developer.mozilla.org/en/New\_in\_JavaScript\_1.7#Block\_scope\_with\_let</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30285056</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30285762</id>
	<title>Re:Why bother?</title>
	<author>Glabrezu</author>
	<datestamp>1259693940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You mean the Douglas Crockford that wrote <a href="http://www.crockford.com/javascript/private.html" title="crockford.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.crockford.com/javascript/private.html</a> [crockford.com]?</p><p>When I talk about an object oriented programming language I'm referring to a language that allows you to use the concepts of OOP in a *natural* and *homogeneous* way. I don't want to write a library and helper methods to write an OO program, I want to use the language.</p><p>It's OK if it doesn't has classes, and therefore inheritance does not have a place in Javascript, just stop trying to force it to be something that it was not meant to be (that is a general purpose language to write medium to large scale applications).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean the Douglas Crockford that wrote http : //www.crockford.com/javascript/private.html [ crockford.com ] ? When I talk about an object oriented programming language I 'm referring to a language that allows you to use the concepts of OOP in a * natural * and * homogeneous * way .
I do n't want to write a library and helper methods to write an OO program , I want to use the language.It 's OK if it does n't has classes , and therefore inheritance does not have a place in Javascript , just stop trying to force it to be something that it was not meant to be ( that is a general purpose language to write medium to large scale applications ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean the Douglas Crockford that wrote http://www.crockford.com/javascript/private.html [crockford.com]?When I talk about an object oriented programming language I'm referring to a language that allows you to use the concepts of OOP in a *natural* and *homogeneous* way.
I don't want to write a library and helper methods to write an OO program, I want to use the language.It's OK if it doesn't has classes, and therefore inheritance does not have a place in Javascript, just stop trying to force it to be something that it was not meant to be (that is a general purpose language to write medium to large scale applications).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284828</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30286212</id>
	<title>Re:What what most sites use Javascript for...</title>
	<author>elnyka</author>
	<datestamp>1259695500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>... the browser might just as well support GWBasic. However fancy javascript may be , it doesn't take the worlds most advanced scripting language to to do pop up windows<nobr> <wbr></nobr>,mouseover events and selective loading.</p><p>Instead of trying to makd the browser a cut down OS as both MS and Firefox coders seem to be headed for, they should go back to basics and make the browser a simple reliable graphics display program with some user I/O thrown in. Not some bloated monstrosity that has all the reliability of a 20 year old unserviced Trabant. Having to support an ever more complex OO interpreted language doesn't help this reliability.</p></div><p>The problem with this thinking is that the web, as it is utilized nowadays, requires more than a simple reliable graphics display program with some user I/O thrown in it. It is here, I sometimes don't like it either, but it is here. That's the modus operandi nowadays. So we suck it up and make it work. That's what they pay us for.</p><p>

We have been running good (and bad) RIA with various degrees of JS for quite some time. I've seen some really good stuff, and some really bad stuff, both using the browser and javascript. This, and taking into account that good and bad code can be written in any language leads to conclude squarely that there is nothing intrinsic in the language and browser that can lead someone other than a <b>shitty developer</b> to create crappy software. And this is a truth for any software development system.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... the browser might just as well support GWBasic .
However fancy javascript may be , it does n't take the worlds most advanced scripting language to to do pop up windows ,mouseover events and selective loading.Instead of trying to makd the browser a cut down OS as both MS and Firefox coders seem to be headed for , they should go back to basics and make the browser a simple reliable graphics display program with some user I/O thrown in .
Not some bloated monstrosity that has all the reliability of a 20 year old unserviced Trabant .
Having to support an ever more complex OO interpreted language does n't help this reliability.The problem with this thinking is that the web , as it is utilized nowadays , requires more than a simple reliable graphics display program with some user I/O thrown in it .
It is here , I sometimes do n't like it either , but it is here .
That 's the modus operandi nowadays .
So we suck it up and make it work .
That 's what they pay us for .
We have been running good ( and bad ) RIA with various degrees of JS for quite some time .
I 've seen some really good stuff , and some really bad stuff , both using the browser and javascript .
This , and taking into account that good and bad code can be written in any language leads to conclude squarely that there is nothing intrinsic in the language and browser that can lead someone other than a shitty developer to create crappy software .
And this is a truth for any software development system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... the browser might just as well support GWBasic.
However fancy javascript may be , it doesn't take the worlds most advanced scripting language to to do pop up windows ,mouseover events and selective loading.Instead of trying to makd the browser a cut down OS as both MS and Firefox coders seem to be headed for, they should go back to basics and make the browser a simple reliable graphics display program with some user I/O thrown in.
Not some bloated monstrosity that has all the reliability of a 20 year old unserviced Trabant.
Having to support an ever more complex OO interpreted language doesn't help this reliability.The problem with this thinking is that the web, as it is utilized nowadays, requires more than a simple reliable graphics display program with some user I/O thrown in it.
It is here, I sometimes don't like it either, but it is here.
That's the modus operandi nowadays.
So we suck it up and make it work.
That's what they pay us for.
We have been running good (and bad) RIA with various degrees of JS for quite some time.
I've seen some really good stuff, and some really bad stuff, both using the browser and javascript.
This, and taking into account that good and bad code can be written in any language leads to conclude squarely that there is nothing intrinsic in the language and browser that can lead someone other than a shitty developer to create crappy software.
And this is a truth for any software development system.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284476</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30290268</id>
	<title>Re:Getting JS out of the browser is a *great* idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259668020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ahhh, did you <i>read</i> the example he pointed you at? Your "implementation" completely fails <i>every one</i> of the special case "unusual behaviors" that I believe the OP was talking about when saying it was nasty. To quote:</p><blockquote><div><p>The object returned for <tt>all</tt> has several unusual behaviors:</p><ul> <li>The user agent must act as if the ToBoolean() operator in JavaScript converts the object returned for all to the false value.</li><li>The user agent must act as if, for the purposes of the == and != operators in JavaScript, the object returned for all is equal to the undefined value.</li><li>The user agent must act such that the typeof operator in JavaScript returns the string undefined when applied to the object returned for all.</li></ul></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ahhh , did you read the example he pointed you at ?
Your " implementation " completely fails every one of the special case " unusual behaviors " that I believe the OP was talking about when saying it was nasty .
To quote : The object returned for all has several unusual behaviors : The user agent must act as if the ToBoolean ( ) operator in JavaScript converts the object returned for all to the false value.The user agent must act as if , for the purposes of the = = and ! = operators in JavaScript , the object returned for all is equal to the undefined value.The user agent must act such that the typeof operator in JavaScript returns the string undefined when applied to the object returned for all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ahhh, did you read the example he pointed you at?
Your "implementation" completely fails every one of the special case "unusual behaviors" that I believe the OP was talking about when saying it was nasty.
To quote:The object returned for all has several unusual behaviors: The user agent must act as if the ToBoolean() operator in JavaScript converts the object returned for all to the false value.The user agent must act as if, for the purposes of the == and != operators in JavaScript, the object returned for all is equal to the undefined value.The user agent must act such that the typeof operator in JavaScript returns the string undefined when applied to the object returned for all.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30285214</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30290512</id>
	<title>Re:Why bother?</title>
	<author>hobo sapiens</author>
	<datestamp>1259669280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"I actually wish JavaScript and other client-side browser scripting would be done away with completely, but JS is not a particularly 'good' language."</p><p>Most people who have this opinion are people who don't actually know how to write javascript or understand its power.  Are you one of them?  My bet is on yes.  Oh, and as cool as jQuery is, knowing how to write jQuery is not the same as knowing how to write javascript.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" I actually wish JavaScript and other client-side browser scripting would be done away with completely , but JS is not a particularly 'good ' language .
" Most people who have this opinion are people who do n't actually know how to write javascript or understand its power .
Are you one of them ?
My bet is on yes .
Oh , and as cool as jQuery is , knowing how to write jQuery is not the same as knowing how to write javascript .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I actually wish JavaScript and other client-side browser scripting would be done away with completely, but JS is not a particularly 'good' language.
"Most people who have this opinion are people who don't actually know how to write javascript or understand its power.
Are you one of them?
My bet is on yes.
Oh, and as cool as jQuery is, knowing how to write jQuery is not the same as knowing how to write javascript.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284314</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284318</id>
	<title>Javascript is actually a great language</title>
	<author>BadAnalogyGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1259687820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dynamically typed, object-oriented, with features like lexical closures that are usually only found in advanced programming languages like Lisp, Javascript is really a great language that has gotten a bad rap.</p><p>It reminds me of the lowly tomato, a member of the poisonous nightshade family of plants, which for years was considered to be inedible. These days you can't get a salad without it. Things change when you realize how useful something actually is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dynamically typed , object-oriented , with features like lexical closures that are usually only found in advanced programming languages like Lisp , Javascript is really a great language that has gotten a bad rap.It reminds me of the lowly tomato , a member of the poisonous nightshade family of plants , which for years was considered to be inedible .
These days you ca n't get a salad without it .
Things change when you realize how useful something actually is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dynamically typed, object-oriented, with features like lexical closures that are usually only found in advanced programming languages like Lisp, Javascript is really a great language that has gotten a bad rap.It reminds me of the lowly tomato, a member of the poisonous nightshade family of plants, which for years was considered to be inedible.
These days you can't get a salad without it.
Things change when you realize how useful something actually is.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284784</id>
	<title>Re:Better Idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259689800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>it exist go there http://www.legacyj.com/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it exist go there http : //www.legacyj.com/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it exist go there http://www.legacyj.com/</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30285692</id>
	<title>Re:Javascript is actually a great language</title>
	<author>Transfinite</author>
	<datestamp>1259693700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"CPU-intensive computations" + "lack of threading or any other explicit or implicit parallelism support"

What like concurrency via WebWorkers?

"no library facilities to modern 2D/3D graphics libraries"

What like this<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:http://processingjs.org/

"Javascript is a nice experimental language like so many others but it shouldn't be running 90\% of mission-critical applications"

I'd hardly call it experimental after what 14-15 years. After all JAVA was designed for friggin fridges!

So what you are trying to say is.....

"I HAVE NO CLUE".</htmltext>
<tokenext>" CPU-intensive computations " + " lack of threading or any other explicit or implicit parallelism support " What like concurrency via WebWorkers ?
" no library facilities to modern 2D/3D graphics libraries " What like this : http : //processingjs.org/ " Javascript is a nice experimental language like so many others but it should n't be running 90 \ % of mission-critical applications " I 'd hardly call it experimental after what 14-15 years .
After all JAVA was designed for friggin fridges !
So what you are trying to say is.... . " I HAVE NO CLUE " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"CPU-intensive computations" + "lack of threading or any other explicit or implicit parallelism support"

What like concurrency via WebWorkers?
"no library facilities to modern 2D/3D graphics libraries"

What like this :http://processingjs.org/

"Javascript is a nice experimental language like so many others but it shouldn't be running 90\% of mission-critical applications"

I'd hardly call it experimental after what 14-15 years.
After all JAVA was designed for friggin fridges!
So what you are trying to say is.....

"I HAVE NO CLUE".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284452</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30286370</id>
	<title>Re:Javascript is actually a great language</title>
	<author>elnyka</author>
	<datestamp>1259696040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Here's my three favourite language flaws, which make the language nearly unusable for non-trivial projects:
</p><ul>
<li>Variables are global by default, leading to accidental memory leaks, conflicts and various other fun things.</li><li>A lack of namespaces.</li><li>Lack of block scope (despite the fact the language has blocks), i.e:<blockquote><div><p> <tt>function a() {
  var b = 1;
  {
    var b = 2;
  }
  alert(b);
}</tt> </p></div></blockquote><p>will alert 2.</p></li></ul></div><p>Global variables, lack of namespaces and block scopes are nuances that can be worked around with proper coding practices and a good understanding of the language. This is orthogonal to pointers and memory allocation in C - you play them wrong and you'll get some funny results too. But, just as in C, in JavaScript (and in any programming language for that matter), the ultimate responsibility is on the programmer.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's my three favourite language flaws , which make the language nearly unusable for non-trivial projects : Variables are global by default , leading to accidental memory leaks , conflicts and various other fun things.A lack of namespaces.Lack of block scope ( despite the fact the language has blocks ) , i.e : function a ( ) { var b = 1 ; { var b = 2 ; } alert ( b ) ; } will alert 2.Global variables , lack of namespaces and block scopes are nuances that can be worked around with proper coding practices and a good understanding of the language .
This is orthogonal to pointers and memory allocation in C - you play them wrong and you 'll get some funny results too .
But , just as in C , in JavaScript ( and in any programming language for that matter ) , the ultimate responsibility is on the programmer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's my three favourite language flaws, which make the language nearly unusable for non-trivial projects:

Variables are global by default, leading to accidental memory leaks, conflicts and various other fun things.A lack of namespaces.Lack of block scope (despite the fact the language has blocks), i.e: function a() {
  var b = 1;
  {
    var b = 2;
  }
  alert(b);
} will alert 2.Global variables, lack of namespaces and block scopes are nuances that can be worked around with proper coding practices and a good understanding of the language.
This is orthogonal to pointers and memory allocation in C - you play them wrong and you'll get some funny results too.
But, just as in C, in JavaScript (and in any programming language for that matter), the ultimate responsibility is on the programmer.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30286078</id>
	<title>Good platform BUT one-size-fits-all language.</title>
	<author>boorack</author>
	<datestamp>1259695080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If we talk about languages, I prefer real LISP over JS. Not that JS is bad, but I still have to see language that matches LISP in many areas (see LISP macros). Most of today apps use JS in browser and something other on server. This is BAD, no matter how cool JS itself is.
<p>
While using Java Script on server is (some) option, there is also other way around - see GWT or Pyjamas.  As browser is becoming a full-fledged platform, it is screaming for support of other languages along side with JS. While it is possible to compile other languages into JS, it's a kludge. The whole situation screams for splitting JS into lower level instruction set (along with object model implementing cool JavaScript features, like first class functions, prototypes and functional programming features) and JS language implementation on top of that. Other languages would compile to this intermediate representation as well. I would like to use my LISP for implementing in-browser code (Scriptjure does it but it is still in its infancy and it will become kludge, like GWT anyway)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If we talk about languages , I prefer real LISP over JS .
Not that JS is bad , but I still have to see language that matches LISP in many areas ( see LISP macros ) .
Most of today apps use JS in browser and something other on server .
This is BAD , no matter how cool JS itself is .
While using Java Script on server is ( some ) option , there is also other way around - see GWT or Pyjamas .
As browser is becoming a full-fledged platform , it is screaming for support of other languages along side with JS .
While it is possible to compile other languages into JS , it 's a kludge .
The whole situation screams for splitting JS into lower level instruction set ( along with object model implementing cool JavaScript features , like first class functions , prototypes and functional programming features ) and JS language implementation on top of that .
Other languages would compile to this intermediate representation as well .
I would like to use my LISP for implementing in-browser code ( Scriptjure does it but it is still in its infancy and it will become kludge , like GWT anyway )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If we talk about languages, I prefer real LISP over JS.
Not that JS is bad, but I still have to see language that matches LISP in many areas (see LISP macros).
Most of today apps use JS in browser and something other on server.
This is BAD, no matter how cool JS itself is.
While using Java Script on server is (some) option, there is also other way around - see GWT or Pyjamas.
As browser is becoming a full-fledged platform, it is screaming for support of other languages along side with JS.
While it is possible to compile other languages into JS, it's a kludge.
The whole situation screams for splitting JS into lower level instruction set (along with object model implementing cool JavaScript features, like first class functions, prototypes and functional programming features) and JS language implementation on top of that.
Other languages would compile to this intermediate representation as well.
I would like to use my LISP for implementing in-browser code (Scriptjure does it but it is still in its infancy and it will become kludge, like GWT anyway)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284828</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30288400</id>
	<title>Re:Crimes against humanity</title>
	<author>zztong</author>
	<datestamp>1259660100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh phew. I'm glad you didn't say most software developers aren't human.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh phew .
I 'm glad you did n't say most software developers are n't human .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh phew.
I'm glad you didn't say most software developers aren't human.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284614</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30286064</id>
	<title>Re:Why bother?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259695020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Why in the fuck would you have a string?</p><p>Because SGML, that's why.  It's a really generic language (a markup language, not a programming language), and having one builtin type (strings) for attributes seems to fit.  Anyway what it is is a delimiter syntax for the values of attributes.  Leaving them out doesn't really help the situation either.</p><p>id is a unique id in the HTML namespace, name describes the name of a field in a form object.  You can and do reuse those.  Blame IE for the confusion, it's the only one that treats "name" as special on any other elements.</p><p>HTML a pile of half-baked hacks, but not everything they did was stupid.  There's a reason alternatives didn't catch on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Why in the fuck would you have a string ? Because SGML , that 's why .
It 's a really generic language ( a markup language , not a programming language ) , and having one builtin type ( strings ) for attributes seems to fit .
Anyway what it is is a delimiter syntax for the values of attributes .
Leaving them out does n't really help the situation either.id is a unique id in the HTML namespace , name describes the name of a field in a form object .
You can and do reuse those .
Blame IE for the confusion , it 's the only one that treats " name " as special on any other elements.HTML a pile of half-baked hacks , but not everything they did was stupid .
There 's a reason alternatives did n't catch on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Why in the fuck would you have a string?Because SGML, that's why.
It's a really generic language (a markup language, not a programming language), and having one builtin type (strings) for attributes seems to fit.
Anyway what it is is a delimiter syntax for the values of attributes.
Leaving them out doesn't really help the situation either.id is a unique id in the HTML namespace, name describes the name of a field in a form object.
You can and do reuse those.
Blame IE for the confusion, it's the only one that treats "name" as special on any other elements.HTML a pile of half-baked hacks, but not everything they did was stupid.
There's a reason alternatives didn't catch on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30285664</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284558</id>
	<title>Re:Javascript is actually a great language</title>
	<author>slug359</author>
	<datestamp>1259688840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here's my three favourite language flaws, which make the language nearly unusable for non-trivial projects:
<ul>
<li>Variables are global by default, leading to accidental memory leaks, conflicts and various other fun things.</li><li>A lack of namespaces.</li><li>Lack of block scope (despite the fact the language has blocks), i.e:<blockquote><div><p> <tt>function a() {<br>  var b = 1;<br>  {<br>    var b = 2;<br>  }<br>  alert(b);<br>}</tt></p></div> </blockquote><p>will alert 2.</p>
</li></ul></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's my three favourite language flaws , which make the language nearly unusable for non-trivial projects : Variables are global by default , leading to accidental memory leaks , conflicts and various other fun things.A lack of namespaces.Lack of block scope ( despite the fact the language has blocks ) , i.e : function a ( ) { var b = 1 ; { var b = 2 ; } alert ( b ) ; } will alert 2 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's my three favourite language flaws, which make the language nearly unusable for non-trivial projects:

Variables are global by default, leading to accidental memory leaks, conflicts and various other fun things.A lack of namespaces.Lack of block scope (despite the fact the language has blocks), i.e: function a() {  var b = 1;  {    var b = 2;  }  alert(b);} will alert 2.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284318</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30286786</id>
	<title>See http://cappuccino.org/ Objective-J</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259697420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>See http://cappuccino.org/ Objective-J</p><p>That is an indication of the power and elegance that Javascript might have outside the browser.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>See http : //cappuccino.org/ Objective-JThat is an indication of the power and elegance that Javascript might have outside the browser .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>See http://cappuccino.org/ Objective-JThat is an indication of the power and elegance that Javascript might have outside the browser.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284450</id>
	<title>i'm not so sure about this.</title>
	<author>Overunderrated</author>
	<datestamp>1259688420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>KILL IT WITH FIRE</htmltext>
<tokenext>KILL IT WITH FIRE</tokentext>
<sentencetext>KILL IT WITH FIRE</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30293978</id>
	<title>Re:Javascript is actually a great language</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259692860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The first problem is solved by strict mode, in browsers that implement it. The second problem is solved by making all of your function calls part of an object (e.g., var MyObject = {}; MyObject.myFunction = function();). The third is solved by the "let" keyword, in browsers that implement it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The first problem is solved by strict mode , in browsers that implement it .
The second problem is solved by making all of your function calls part of an object ( e.g. , var MyObject = { } ; MyObject.myFunction = function ( ) ; ) .
The third is solved by the " let " keyword , in browsers that implement it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The first problem is solved by strict mode, in browsers that implement it.
The second problem is solved by making all of your function calls part of an object (e.g., var MyObject = {}; MyObject.myFunction = function();).
The third is solved by the "let" keyword, in browsers that implement it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30292832</id>
	<title>Re:Its a great idea! Both P and GP</title>
	<author>SanityInAnarchy</author>
	<datestamp>1259682660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Do away with client side browser scripting entirely and replace it with applications written in Javascript.</p></div><p>Why?</p><p>I mean, the main reason people write client side browser applications isn't JavaScript, it's that they're <i>browser</i> applications.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't like the requirement that I have to allow most websites to run essentially arbitrary code on my machine in order to view them.</p></div><p>A valid complaint -- most websites <i>should</i> work with Javascript disabled, and noscript proves this. (Though, ironically... isn't noscript, as a Firefox extension, going to be at least partly written in Javascript?)</p><p>Also: How does replacing this with a Javascript desktop application improve things? At least the browser <i>tries</i> to sandbox things.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't trust my browser to protect me, and I resent having to switch to my virtual machine to browse,</p></div><p>Paranoid much?</p><p>But then, if you were to download a Javascript application, wouldn't you run that in a virtual machine, too?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>always having that notion that my virtual machine is probably a pox ridden compromised bit bucket that I should really empty at least once a week.</p></div><p>So you're knowledgeable enough to be afraid of scripted web pages, but not enough to use Noscript, and certainly not enough to apply that same paranoia to an application you would <i>download and run with full privileges.</i></p><p>And you're knowledgeable enough to operate a VM, but not to know about its snapshot capability, with which you could get a blank slate <i>every boot</i>.</p><p>I'm not sure how to put this nicely, but...</p><p>A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do away with client side browser scripting entirely and replace it with applications written in Javascript.Why ? I mean , the main reason people write client side browser applications is n't JavaScript , it 's that they 're browser applications.I do n't like the requirement that I have to allow most websites to run essentially arbitrary code on my machine in order to view them.A valid complaint -- most websites should work with Javascript disabled , and noscript proves this .
( Though , ironically... is n't noscript , as a Firefox extension , going to be at least partly written in Javascript ?
) Also : How does replacing this with a Javascript desktop application improve things ?
At least the browser tries to sandbox things.I do n't trust my browser to protect me , and I resent having to switch to my virtual machine to browse,Paranoid much ? But then , if you were to download a Javascript application , would n't you run that in a virtual machine , too ? always having that notion that my virtual machine is probably a pox ridden compromised bit bucket that I should really empty at least once a week.So you 're knowledgeable enough to be afraid of scripted web pages , but not enough to use Noscript , and certainly not enough to apply that same paranoia to an application you would download and run with full privileges.And you 're knowledgeable enough to operate a VM , but not to know about its snapshot capability , with which you could get a blank slate every boot.I 'm not sure how to put this nicely , but...A little knowledge is a dangerous thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do away with client side browser scripting entirely and replace it with applications written in Javascript.Why?I mean, the main reason people write client side browser applications isn't JavaScript, it's that they're browser applications.I don't like the requirement that I have to allow most websites to run essentially arbitrary code on my machine in order to view them.A valid complaint -- most websites should work with Javascript disabled, and noscript proves this.
(Though, ironically... isn't noscript, as a Firefox extension, going to be at least partly written in Javascript?
)Also: How does replacing this with a Javascript desktop application improve things?
At least the browser tries to sandbox things.I don't trust my browser to protect me, and I resent having to switch to my virtual machine to browse,Paranoid much?But then, if you were to download a Javascript application, wouldn't you run that in a virtual machine, too?always having that notion that my virtual machine is probably a pox ridden compromised bit bucket that I should really empty at least once a week.So you're knowledgeable enough to be afraid of scripted web pages, but not enough to use Noscript, and certainly not enough to apply that same paranoia to an application you would download and run with full privileges.And you're knowledgeable enough to operate a VM, but not to know about its snapshot capability, with which you could get a blank slate every boot.I'm not sure how to put this nicely, but...A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30285316</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30294680</id>
	<title>Re:Javascript is actually a great language</title>
	<author>yuhong</author>
	<datestamp>1259613900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't forget Windows Scripting Host too, I once used it to program with VBS.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't forget Windows Scripting Host too , I once used it to program with VBS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't forget Windows Scripting Host too, I once used it to program with VBS.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30285302</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30287962</id>
	<title>Re:Why bother?</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1259658420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>He just said hide/move<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... didn't say fade...</htmltext>
<tokenext>He just said hide/move ... did n't say fade.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He just said hide/move ... didn't say fade...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30286698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30300544</id>
	<title>Re:Javascript is actually a great language</title>
	<author>shiftless</author>
	<datestamp>1259611500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Some sort of interpreted language was needed for the web, to run untrusted code in a secure way. </i></p><p>And the real question is, why do we need this capability? The answer is simple. We are using Javascript to force HTTP and HTML into uses they were never designed for, and are not even close to being the ideal solution for modern needs. What we need is a new protocol that is designed specifically for implementing a user interface remotely, not a 15 year old standard that was designed to serve up simple text documents and only handle minimum data exchange between client and server. I'm thinking something along the lines of the X11 protocol in concept, but far simplified and built for the purpose at hand.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some sort of interpreted language was needed for the web , to run untrusted code in a secure way .
And the real question is , why do we need this capability ?
The answer is simple .
We are using Javascript to force HTTP and HTML into uses they were never designed for , and are not even close to being the ideal solution for modern needs .
What we need is a new protocol that is designed specifically for implementing a user interface remotely , not a 15 year old standard that was designed to serve up simple text documents and only handle minimum data exchange between client and server .
I 'm thinking something along the lines of the X11 protocol in concept , but far simplified and built for the purpose at hand .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some sort of interpreted language was needed for the web, to run untrusted code in a secure way.
And the real question is, why do we need this capability?
The answer is simple.
We are using Javascript to force HTTP and HTML into uses they were never designed for, and are not even close to being the ideal solution for modern needs.
What we need is a new protocol that is designed specifically for implementing a user interface remotely, not a 15 year old standard that was designed to serve up simple text documents and only handle minimum data exchange between client and server.
I'm thinking something along the lines of the X11 protocol in concept, but far simplified and built for the purpose at hand.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30285988</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30285114</id>
	<title>JS needs threads</title>
	<author>microbox</author>
	<datestamp>1259691300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>It needs threads. I know the unwashed masses don't know what to do with them, but if you *do* know, then they can really be used to make much simpler code.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It needs threads .
I know the unwashed masses do n't know what to do with them , but if you * do * know , then they can really be used to make much simpler code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It needs threads.
I know the unwashed masses don't know what to do with them, but if you *do* know, then they can really be used to make much simpler code.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284828</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284460</id>
	<title>Re:Javascript is actually a great language</title>
	<author>OverlordQ</author>
	<datestamp>1259688420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or maybe more like Oxygen, poisonous in high concentrations (re: pressures).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or maybe more like Oxygen , poisonous in high concentrations ( re : pressures ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or maybe more like Oxygen, poisonous in high concentrations (re: pressures).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284318</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30286608</id>
	<title>Re:Javascript is actually a great language</title>
	<author>tixxit</author>
	<datestamp>1259696880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Javascript in the browser is single threaded. This is true of most GUI frameworks and should really not come as a surprise. I do not believe anyone think JS should be running 90\% of mission critical applications any more then folk think that all data should be stored in XML files rather then a database. What they are saying is that, perhaps, JS has a life outside of the browser. This can be as a GUI scripting language, server-side templating, small scripts, etc.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Javascript in the browser is single threaded .
This is true of most GUI frameworks and should really not come as a surprise .
I do not believe anyone think JS should be running 90 \ % of mission critical applications any more then folk think that all data should be stored in XML files rather then a database .
What they are saying is that , perhaps , JS has a life outside of the browser .
This can be as a GUI scripting language , server-side templating , small scripts , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Javascript in the browser is single threaded.
This is true of most GUI frameworks and should really not come as a surprise.
I do not believe anyone think JS should be running 90\% of mission critical applications any more then folk think that all data should be stored in XML files rather then a database.
What they are saying is that, perhaps, JS has a life outside of the browser.
This can be as a GUI scripting language, server-side templating, small scripts, etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284452</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30288534</id>
	<title>JS not too bad for open minded programmers</title>
	<author>thelonious</author>
	<datestamp>1259660640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now I know why some simple development tasks and interfacing become so convoluted and unmanageable at my work, some of you negative nannies probably work here!<br>I've been using JS + DOM + JSON + other junk for some cool browser stuff for a few years now and no, it's not perfect.  And yes, it had gotten better.  Debugging is not friendly, but to a programmer that knows how to modularize and reuse code (any of those here?) it's not hard to isolate a problem.</p><p>I don't like browser inconsistencies, who does?  I wish everyone would at least follow W3 html box model.  There's so many things I wish, but it's easy to use and can do some interesting stuff in almost any popular browser.</p><p>I would not be surprised in the least to see a browser/visitor report for slashdot and see the amazingly high count for lynx.</p><p>Are you guys really having such major problems using this simple technology?  Do the rest of us a favor and stick to CoBol.  Give me any language, flaws and all and I'll get the most out of it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now I know why some simple development tasks and interfacing become so convoluted and unmanageable at my work , some of you negative nannies probably work here ! I 've been using JS + DOM + JSON + other junk for some cool browser stuff for a few years now and no , it 's not perfect .
And yes , it had gotten better .
Debugging is not friendly , but to a programmer that knows how to modularize and reuse code ( any of those here ?
) it 's not hard to isolate a problem.I do n't like browser inconsistencies , who does ?
I wish everyone would at least follow W3 html box model .
There 's so many things I wish , but it 's easy to use and can do some interesting stuff in almost any popular browser.I would not be surprised in the least to see a browser/visitor report for slashdot and see the amazingly high count for lynx.Are you guys really having such major problems using this simple technology ?
Do the rest of us a favor and stick to CoBol .
Give me any language , flaws and all and I 'll get the most out of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now I know why some simple development tasks and interfacing become so convoluted and unmanageable at my work, some of you negative nannies probably work here!I've been using JS + DOM + JSON + other junk for some cool browser stuff for a few years now and no, it's not perfect.
And yes, it had gotten better.
Debugging is not friendly, but to a programmer that knows how to modularize and reuse code (any of those here?
) it's not hard to isolate a problem.I don't like browser inconsistencies, who does?
I wish everyone would at least follow W3 html box model.
There's so many things I wish, but it's easy to use and can do some interesting stuff in almost any popular browser.I would not be surprised in the least to see a browser/visitor report for slashdot and see the amazingly high count for lynx.Are you guys really having such major problems using this simple technology?
Do the rest of us a favor and stick to CoBol.
Give me any language, flaws and all and I'll get the most out of it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30290554</id>
	<title>Re:Why bother?</title>
	<author>hobo sapiens</author>
	<datestamp>1259669520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>yes, forget judging a book by its cover.  Let's judge a programming language by the thickness of a (very good) textbook about it.  Your rubric makes a ton of sense.  I'll apply it to your short post.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>yes , forget judging a book by its cover .
Let 's judge a programming language by the thickness of a ( very good ) textbook about it .
Your rubric makes a ton of sense .
I 'll apply it to your short post .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yes, forget judging a book by its cover.
Let's judge a programming language by the thickness of a (very good) textbook about it.
Your rubric makes a ton of sense.
I'll apply it to your short post.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30285160</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30290408</id>
	<title>Re:A huge pain</title>
	<author>Art3x</author>
	<datestamp>1259668740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Debugging JS with an alert window is a horrible experience.</p></div><p> <a href="http://getfirebug.com/" title="getfirebug.com" rel="nofollow">http://getfirebug.com/</a> [getfirebug.com].

Then don't do it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Debugging JS with an alert window is a horrible experience .
http : //getfirebug.com/ [ getfirebug.com ] .
Then do n't do it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Debugging JS with an alert window is a horrible experience.
http://getfirebug.com/ [getfirebug.com].
Then don't do it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284488</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30291940</id>
	<title>Re:Why bother?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259676420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's been my observation that most PHP programmers can't be bothered to learn PHP.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's been my observation that most PHP programmers ca n't be bothered to learn PHP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's been my observation that most PHP programmers can't be bothered to learn PHP.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30285506</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284414</id>
	<title>Re:Javascript is actually a great language</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259688300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It reminds me of the lowly tomato, a member of the poisonous nightshade family of plants, which for years was considered to be inedible. These days you can't get a <b>pizza</b> without it.</p><p>Now get on your sockpuppet and give us all a good analogy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It reminds me of the lowly tomato , a member of the poisonous nightshade family of plants , which for years was considered to be inedible .
These days you ca n't get a pizza without it.Now get on your sockpuppet and give us all a good analogy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It reminds me of the lowly tomato, a member of the poisonous nightshade family of plants, which for years was considered to be inedible.
These days you can't get a pizza without it.Now get on your sockpuppet and give us all a good analogy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284318</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30286126</id>
	<title>I remember...</title>
	<author>hesaigo999ca</author>
	<datestamp>1259695200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I remember a long time ago, I used to use javascript within the browser with useless home pages that did pretty much all my coding formatting for me. I would use a template type schema for building my sql queries, or even try to filter text returns based on entry in the textbox, because it was just quicker to code then opening a full visual studio interface etc...etc..</p><p>It definitely has its uses, and is by far a very effective language to do what you want with, with regular expressions as advanced as perl, and object oriented model within the dom that is way further advanced then some other languages<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....I have to say I am interested in what will develop from this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember a long time ago , I used to use javascript within the browser with useless home pages that did pretty much all my coding formatting for me .
I would use a template type schema for building my sql queries , or even try to filter text returns based on entry in the textbox , because it was just quicker to code then opening a full visual studio interface etc...etc..It definitely has its uses , and is by far a very effective language to do what you want with , with regular expressions as advanced as perl , and object oriented model within the dom that is way further advanced then some other languages ....I have to say I am interested in what will develop from this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember a long time ago, I used to use javascript within the browser with useless home pages that did pretty much all my coding formatting for me.
I would use a template type schema for building my sql queries, or even try to filter text returns based on entry in the textbox, because it was just quicker to code then opening a full visual studio interface etc...etc..It definitely has its uses, and is by far a very effective language to do what you want with, with regular expressions as advanced as perl, and object oriented model within the dom that is way further advanced then some other languages ....I have to say I am interested in what will develop from this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30287502</id>
	<title>Re:Javascript is actually a great language</title>
	<author>ivucica</author>
	<datestamp>1259699820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Command-line" Javascript?  If you're referring to the core language (already separated from browser) that's called ECMAScript.<br>
<br>
While most of your complaints are legitimate and I suffer from them as well, a lot of stuff, like existence of functions, can be verified by punching it into a try/catch block. It's fugly, but it's possible.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Command-line " Javascript ?
If you 're referring to the core language ( already separated from browser ) that 's called ECMAScript .
While most of your complaints are legitimate and I suffer from them as well , a lot of stuff , like existence of functions , can be verified by punching it into a try/catch block .
It 's fugly , but it 's possible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Command-line" Javascript?
If you're referring to the core language (already separated from browser) that's called ECMAScript.
While most of your complaints are legitimate and I suffer from them as well, a lot of stuff, like existence of functions, can be verified by punching it into a try/catch block.
It's fugly, but it's possible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284482</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30286698</id>
	<title>Re:Why bother?</title>
	<author>FictionPimp</author>
	<datestamp>1259697120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How do you  hide or move a DOM object in real time with css? For example how do you do this with css<br>
(jquery example)
<p>
$("p").click(function () {
      $("p").fadeOut("slow");
    });
</p><p>

I'm not a javascript fan, but I have to use it daily for the tasks given to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How do you hide or move a DOM object in real time with css ?
For example how do you do this with css ( jquery example ) $ ( " p " ) .click ( function ( ) { $ ( " p " ) .fadeOut ( " slow " ) ; } ) ; I 'm not a javascript fan , but I have to use it daily for the tasks given to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How do you  hide or move a DOM object in real time with css?
For example how do you do this with css
(jquery example)

$("p").click(function () {
      $("p").fadeOut("slow");
    });


I'm not a javascript fan, but I have to use it daily for the tasks given to me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30285506</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30293758</id>
	<title>Re:Can your language do this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259691120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wouldn't include JAVA in this discussion, as it's uglier than Javascript. Seriously, 7 different steps to program 1 event listener? When<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net can do it in, what, 1?</p><p>My main issues with Javascript is more about how it can be abused by those that are knowledgeable. B/C JavaScript is run Client-Side, they have the ability to hack it. If you do anything w/ Javascript to send information back to the server, this is a very scary loophole and security concern.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would n't include JAVA in this discussion , as it 's uglier than Javascript .
Seriously , 7 different steps to program 1 event listener ?
When .Net can do it in , what , 1 ? My main issues with Javascript is more about how it can be abused by those that are knowledgeable .
B/C JavaScript is run Client-Side , they have the ability to hack it .
If you do anything w/ Javascript to send information back to the server , this is a very scary loophole and security concern .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wouldn't include JAVA in this discussion, as it's uglier than Javascript.
Seriously, 7 different steps to program 1 event listener?
When .Net can do it in, what, 1?My main issues with Javascript is more about how it can be abused by those that are knowledgeable.
B/C JavaScript is run Client-Side, they have the ability to hack it.
If you do anything w/ Javascript to send information back to the server, this is a very scary loophole and security concern.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284612</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30336698</id>
	<title>Re:Your bias shows: You can't program shit!</title>
	<author>Requiem18th</author>
	<datestamp>1260040380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I like Python better than JS for a lot of reasons, that it doesn't deal with undefined vs null vs NaN vs Infinity is a big one. That property access is throughly customizable, as well as item access and function calling customizations. And class definitions inside a class block are more clean and elegant than multiple Class.prototype assigments, the standard way of prototype customization in JS.</p><p>BUT, I admit JS has many nice tricks, Object notation makes returning records really easy to create and to use, a feature Python can only awkwardly emulate with namedtuple in recent versions. And I agree that merging the concept of inheritance and instantiation is elegant.</p><p>I wanted to share with you an anecdote of the most "eureka" moment I had in JS.</p><p>As I was debugging an ajax application, I found a piece of coude that failed under some circumstances because it tried to call abort() on an uninitialized XMLHttpRequest, what coul I do?</p><p>I could have changed the logic of the caller, at every call site, to make it test whether the return is a valid XMLHttpRequest before calling abort(),<br>I could have changed the callee and make it return a mock object, one that implemented abort(), the object was initialized inside an object definition so I didn't had the luxury of multiple statements, I had to write class somewhere else and instantiate it here, or maybe not somewhere else, I could have used a function to wrap multiple statements into an expression.</p><p>However, all I did was this:</p><p>return {<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; foo:<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...,<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; request: {abort:function(){}},<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; bar:<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<br>}</p><p>I didn't have to write and instantiate a class, I didn't even had to use a wrapper closure, just one short expression and I was mocking a core language feature. And the best part is that I did that instinctively, because it's so easy, it was only after the fact that I realized what I did was impossible in Python or any language I know! JS not only conflates inheritance and instantiation, it conflates definition with instantiation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I like Python better than JS for a lot of reasons , that it does n't deal with undefined vs null vs NaN vs Infinity is a big one .
That property access is throughly customizable , as well as item access and function calling customizations .
And class definitions inside a class block are more clean and elegant than multiple Class.prototype assigments , the standard way of prototype customization in JS.BUT , I admit JS has many nice tricks , Object notation makes returning records really easy to create and to use , a feature Python can only awkwardly emulate with namedtuple in recent versions .
And I agree that merging the concept of inheritance and instantiation is elegant.I wanted to share with you an anecdote of the most " eureka " moment I had in JS.As I was debugging an ajax application , I found a piece of coude that failed under some circumstances because it tried to call abort ( ) on an uninitialized XMLHttpRequest , what coul I do ? I could have changed the logic of the caller , at every call site , to make it test whether the return is a valid XMLHttpRequest before calling abort ( ) ,I could have changed the callee and make it return a mock object , one that implemented abort ( ) , the object was initialized inside an object definition so I did n't had the luxury of multiple statements , I had to write class somewhere else and instantiate it here , or maybe not somewhere else , I could have used a function to wrap multiple statements into an expression.However , all I did was this : return {         foo : ... ,         request : { abort : function ( ) { } } ,         bar : ... } I did n't have to write and instantiate a class , I did n't even had to use a wrapper closure , just one short expression and I was mocking a core language feature .
And the best part is that I did that instinctively , because it 's so easy , it was only after the fact that I realized what I did was impossible in Python or any language I know !
JS not only conflates inheritance and instantiation , it conflates definition with instantiation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like Python better than JS for a lot of reasons, that it doesn't deal with undefined vs null vs NaN vs Infinity is a big one.
That property access is throughly customizable, as well as item access and function calling customizations.
And class definitions inside a class block are more clean and elegant than multiple Class.prototype assigments, the standard way of prototype customization in JS.BUT, I admit JS has many nice tricks, Object notation makes returning records really easy to create and to use, a feature Python can only awkwardly emulate with namedtuple in recent versions.
And I agree that merging the concept of inheritance and instantiation is elegant.I wanted to share with you an anecdote of the most "eureka" moment I had in JS.As I was debugging an ajax application, I found a piece of coude that failed under some circumstances because it tried to call abort() on an uninitialized XMLHttpRequest, what coul I do?I could have changed the logic of the caller, at every call site, to make it test whether the return is a valid XMLHttpRequest before calling abort(),I could have changed the callee and make it return a mock object, one that implemented abort(), the object was initialized inside an object definition so I didn't had the luxury of multiple statements, I had to write class somewhere else and instantiate it here, or maybe not somewhere else, I could have used a function to wrap multiple statements into an expression.However, all I did was this:return {
        foo: ...,
        request: {abort:function(){}},
        bar: ...}I didn't have to write and instantiate a class, I didn't even had to use a wrapper closure, just one short expression and I was mocking a core language feature.
And the best part is that I did that instinctively, because it's so easy, it was only after the fact that I realized what I did was impossible in Python or any language I know!
JS not only conflates inheritance and instantiation, it conflates definition with instantiation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284984</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30285810</id>
	<title>Re:Why bother?</title>
	<author>Transfinite</author>
	<datestamp>1259694060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"I actually wish JavaScript and other client-side browser scripting would be done away with completely"

Really? no more facebook, twitter, etc, ect.. for you then.

So you'd do everything server side eh? where it belongs? I don't think you have thought about that have you.

Go on think about what you have just said, really think about the implications.

Or perhaps you actually think the web is about as efficient as it can get, everything on the server.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" I actually wish JavaScript and other client-side browser scripting would be done away with completely " Really ?
no more facebook , twitter , etc , ect.. for you then .
So you 'd do everything server side eh ?
where it belongs ?
I do n't think you have thought about that have you .
Go on think about what you have just said , really think about the implications .
Or perhaps you actually think the web is about as efficient as it can get , everything on the server .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I actually wish JavaScript and other client-side browser scripting would be done away with completely"

Really?
no more facebook, twitter, etc, ect.. for you then.
So you'd do everything server side eh?
where it belongs?
I don't think you have thought about that have you.
Go on think about what you have just said, really think about the implications.
Or perhaps you actually think the web is about as efficient as it can get, everything on the server.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284314</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30295570</id>
	<title>Please dont</title>
	<author>jdc18</author>
	<datestamp>1259582940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Javascript is much fun to debug.
Even with firebug it is so hard to find errors sometimes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Javascript is much fun to debug .
Even with firebug it is so hard to find errors sometimes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Javascript is much fun to debug.
Even with firebug it is so hard to find errors sometimes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30286458</id>
	<title>Re:Javascript is actually a great language</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259696340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>reduced modern Core i7 computers to performance of a 486</i></p><p>I'm running Windows 7 on a pentium II, you insensitive clod.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>reduced modern Core i7 computers to performance of a 486I 'm running Windows 7 on a pentium II , you insensitive clod .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>reduced modern Core i7 computers to performance of a 486I'm running Windows 7 on a pentium II, you insensitive clod.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284452</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284808</id>
	<title>Hell NO!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259689920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is madness!... This is Javascript!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is madness ! .. .
This is Javascript !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is madness!...
This is Javascript!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284260</id>
	<title>javascript is good</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259687580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>it's just sometimes, it's a resource hog.</htmltext>
<tokenext>it 's just sometimes , it 's a resource hog .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it's just sometimes, it's a resource hog.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30290150</id>
	<title>Re:Most of you don't know what you are talking abo</title>
	<author>^\_^x</author>
	<datestamp>1259667480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Personally I'm less concerned with its elegance as a language, or what a capable programmer can do with it, and more concerned about what a malicious programmer might do - like the vast ocean of exploits for everything - not just Netscape and IE, but Firefox, Opera, Safari/OSX, Adobe Acrobat, and so on... Virtually any language will have its abuses, but I think they'd be better served by dumping Javascript and starting from scratch - it's a toss-up whether it or ActiveX is the more dangerous scripting language to allow...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally I 'm less concerned with its elegance as a language , or what a capable programmer can do with it , and more concerned about what a malicious programmer might do - like the vast ocean of exploits for everything - not just Netscape and IE , but Firefox , Opera , Safari/OSX , Adobe Acrobat , and so on... Virtually any language will have its abuses , but I think they 'd be better served by dumping Javascript and starting from scratch - it 's a toss-up whether it or ActiveX is the more dangerous scripting language to allow.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally I'm less concerned with its elegance as a language, or what a capable programmer can do with it, and more concerned about what a malicious programmer might do - like the vast ocean of exploits for everything - not just Netscape and IE, but Firefox, Opera, Safari/OSX, Adobe Acrobat, and so on... Virtually any language will have its abuses, but I think they'd be better served by dumping Javascript and starting from scratch - it's a toss-up whether it or ActiveX is the more dangerous scripting language to allow...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30286598</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30285602</id>
	<title>Re:Why bother?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259693340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Commonly believed fallacy: "the standard desktop has tons of memory/CPU [to spare]"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Commonly believed fallacy : " the standard desktop has tons of memory/CPU [ to spare ] "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Commonly believed fallacy: "the standard desktop has tons of memory/CPU [to spare]"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284788</id>
	<title>Re:A huge pain</title>
	<author>sydneyfong</author>
	<datestamp>1259689860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the problems you've described are (among other things) what the article proposes to fix.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the problems you 've described are ( among other things ) what the article proposes to fix .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the problems you've described are (among other things) what the article proposes to fix.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284488</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30287534</id>
	<title>Re:Why bother?</title>
	<author>Tim C</author>
	<datestamp>1259699940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The server should handle<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... every single error check</i></p><p>Yes it should. Perhaps as well as the browser, to reduce round-trips and bandwidth use, etc, but the server must check its inputs, otherwise it will accept whatever rubbish a browser without JavaScript support chooses to submit to it.</p><p>I'm not arguing against your main point, but nevertheless the server must *also* perform error checking.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The server should handle ... every single error checkYes it should .
Perhaps as well as the browser , to reduce round-trips and bandwidth use , etc , but the server must check its inputs , otherwise it will accept whatever rubbish a browser without JavaScript support chooses to submit to it.I 'm not arguing against your main point , but nevertheless the server must * also * perform error checking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The server should handle ... every single error checkYes it should.
Perhaps as well as the browser, to reduce round-trips and bandwidth use, etc, but the server must check its inputs, otherwise it will accept whatever rubbish a browser without JavaScript support chooses to submit to it.I'm not arguing against your main point, but nevertheless the server must *also* perform error checking.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30295468</id>
	<title>Javascript as a scripting language</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259581320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Javascript was designed to be a scripting language, using it as a host language is quite possible.<br>I am using Google V8 implementation as a scripting language for C++ application.  It's like using SQLite, it's VM read SQL language and run it while the database engine is C. There are many things you can do with it:</p><p>1. You can easily expose C++ functions to Javascript, since the host C++ application already build and compiled, using Javascript can customize the app behavior, such as combining several functions into one batch.</p><p>2. You can save app settings and options directly to Javascript and just run it, you don't even need a parser to read config file this way.  I have not found a way to let Javascript do heavy lifting, for example here is a CRC function expose to Javascript, the file reading and calculation threads are C++, Javascript just feed in the filenames and wait for the result. The only namespace concerns me is C++ namespace. I am not side-stepping the performance issue, scripting is just the way it is.</p><p>3. If you expose variables, you can access them inside Javascript space as well.  With it's simple, no non-sense and concise syntax, you can write an entire test suite for your application in Javascript with ease.</p><p>4. You can modify the language: say I have a tokens() function in C++ which can be called in C++ and Javascript with tokens( "a string", delimiter ). Now I can modify the Javascript language like the following:</p><p>String.prototype.tokens = function( delimiter )<br>{<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; if ( typeof( delimiter ) == "string" )<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; return tokens( this, delimiter );<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; else return tokens( this, "<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.,;:-\_/\\|\n\r" );<br>}</p><p>Running this from RC file, I can now do something like "hello how are you?".tokens() in Javascript. I am no Javascript expert, but this is quite flexible.</p><p>5. There is NO DOM.<br>You app is the DOM, or whatever you design it to be.</p><p>6. There is no access to the outside world. You cannot even read/write a file, I have to provide my own library for it, but then I am in total control. While in C++, you use fopen, iostream or even boost::filesystem access anyway. You can just bind a fopen()/fread()/fclose() or iostreams to a Javascript function and then you have all the access you need. You have access to anthing the host language or external libraries provides, with a simple binding you can access them inside Javascript as well.</p><p>The combination of Javascript and C++ is very light weight and very fast ( at least with V8 ). I imagine doing the save with pure Java would cost 3 times more memory and no scripting capability, but of course I have no proof. But if you Java GUI it will certainly consume much much more memory.</p><p>Either you add features to your application, or using Javascript as a job-control language, sometimes scripts are one-time throwaway.  Sure you can do most of the above mentioned with some other language, but Javascript syntax is clear, concise, no "let's just do something different" syntax like using "\" in path kind of thing. For newbie, a clearly structured language is MUCH easier to learn. For C/C++ or Java programmer, Javascript is dead easy to lean.  Big companies like Adobe are using it on all their apps, or some variations of Javascript. Why shouldn't you?</p><p>Sure, there are no "standard" libraries in 2D/3D, OpenGL, GUI or what's not, but if you can connect them to C/C++, you can expose them to Javascript. But you should think about if using Javascript as a host-language is really what you want in the first place.  I have no prior programming experience in Javascript, just looking for a concise, simple language for scripting applications, preferably C-like. All the duct-tape shell scripting languages are less flexible, there are a few C-like scripting languages but too slow and development are slow. Newer languages suffer from weird syntax and structureand pure bad tastes. I choose Javascript for what it provides, not because it is being used in browsers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Javascript was designed to be a scripting language , using it as a host language is quite possible.I am using Google V8 implementation as a scripting language for C + + application .
It 's like using SQLite , it 's VM read SQL language and run it while the database engine is C. There are many things you can do with it : 1 .
You can easily expose C + + functions to Javascript , since the host C + + application already build and compiled , using Javascript can customize the app behavior , such as combining several functions into one batch.2 .
You can save app settings and options directly to Javascript and just run it , you do n't even need a parser to read config file this way .
I have not found a way to let Javascript do heavy lifting , for example here is a CRC function expose to Javascript , the file reading and calculation threads are C + + , Javascript just feed in the filenames and wait for the result .
The only namespace concerns me is C + + namespace .
I am not side-stepping the performance issue , scripting is just the way it is.3 .
If you expose variables , you can access them inside Javascript space as well .
With it 's simple , no non-sense and concise syntax , you can write an entire test suite for your application in Javascript with ease.4 .
You can modify the language : say I have a tokens ( ) function in C + + which can be called in C + + and Javascript with tokens ( " a string " , delimiter ) .
Now I can modify the Javascript language like the following : String.prototype.tokens = function ( delimiter ) {         if ( typeof ( delimiter ) = = " string " )                 return tokens ( this , delimiter ) ;         else return tokens ( this , " . , ; : - \ _/ \ \ | \ n \ r " ) ; } Running this from RC file , I can now do something like " hello how are you ?
" .tokens ( ) in Javascript .
I am no Javascript expert , but this is quite flexible.5 .
There is NO DOM.You app is the DOM , or whatever you design it to be.6 .
There is no access to the outside world .
You can not even read/write a file , I have to provide my own library for it , but then I am in total control .
While in C + + , you use fopen , iostream or even boost : : filesystem access anyway .
You can just bind a fopen ( ) /fread ( ) /fclose ( ) or iostreams to a Javascript function and then you have all the access you need .
You have access to anthing the host language or external libraries provides , with a simple binding you can access them inside Javascript as well.The combination of Javascript and C + + is very light weight and very fast ( at least with V8 ) .
I imagine doing the save with pure Java would cost 3 times more memory and no scripting capability , but of course I have no proof .
But if you Java GUI it will certainly consume much much more memory.Either you add features to your application , or using Javascript as a job-control language , sometimes scripts are one-time throwaway .
Sure you can do most of the above mentioned with some other language , but Javascript syntax is clear , concise , no " let 's just do something different " syntax like using " \ " in path kind of thing .
For newbie , a clearly structured language is MUCH easier to learn .
For C/C + + or Java programmer , Javascript is dead easy to lean .
Big companies like Adobe are using it on all their apps , or some variations of Javascript .
Why should n't you ? Sure , there are no " standard " libraries in 2D/3D , OpenGL , GUI or what 's not , but if you can connect them to C/C + + , you can expose them to Javascript .
But you should think about if using Javascript as a host-language is really what you want in the first place .
I have no prior programming experience in Javascript , just looking for a concise , simple language for scripting applications , preferably C-like .
All the duct-tape shell scripting languages are less flexible , there are a few C-like scripting languages but too slow and development are slow .
Newer languages suffer from weird syntax and structureand pure bad tastes .
I choose Javascript for what it provides , not because it is being used in browsers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Javascript was designed to be a scripting language, using it as a host language is quite possible.I am using Google V8 implementation as a scripting language for C++ application.
It's like using SQLite, it's VM read SQL language and run it while the database engine is C. There are many things you can do with it:1.
You can easily expose C++ functions to Javascript, since the host C++ application already build and compiled, using Javascript can customize the app behavior, such as combining several functions into one batch.2.
You can save app settings and options directly to Javascript and just run it, you don't even need a parser to read config file this way.
I have not found a way to let Javascript do heavy lifting, for example here is a CRC function expose to Javascript, the file reading and calculation threads are C++, Javascript just feed in the filenames and wait for the result.
The only namespace concerns me is C++ namespace.
I am not side-stepping the performance issue, scripting is just the way it is.3.
If you expose variables, you can access them inside Javascript space as well.
With it's simple, no non-sense and concise syntax, you can write an entire test suite for your application in Javascript with ease.4.
You can modify the language: say I have a tokens() function in C++ which can be called in C++ and Javascript with tokens( "a string", delimiter ).
Now I can modify the Javascript language like the following:String.prototype.tokens = function( delimiter ){
        if ( typeof( delimiter ) == "string" )
                return tokens( this, delimiter );
        else return tokens( this, " .,;:-\_/\\|\n\r" );}Running this from RC file, I can now do something like "hello how are you?
".tokens() in Javascript.
I am no Javascript expert, but this is quite flexible.5.
There is NO DOM.You app is the DOM, or whatever you design it to be.6.
There is no access to the outside world.
You cannot even read/write a file, I have to provide my own library for it, but then I am in total control.
While in C++, you use fopen, iostream or even boost::filesystem access anyway.
You can just bind a fopen()/fread()/fclose() or iostreams to a Javascript function and then you have all the access you need.
You have access to anthing the host language or external libraries provides, with a simple binding you can access them inside Javascript as well.The combination of Javascript and C++ is very light weight and very fast ( at least with V8 ).
I imagine doing the save with pure Java would cost 3 times more memory and no scripting capability, but of course I have no proof.
But if you Java GUI it will certainly consume much much more memory.Either you add features to your application, or using Javascript as a job-control language, sometimes scripts are one-time throwaway.
Sure you can do most of the above mentioned with some other language, but Javascript syntax is clear, concise, no "let's just do something different" syntax like using "\" in path kind of thing.
For newbie, a clearly structured language is MUCH easier to learn.
For C/C++ or Java programmer, Javascript is dead easy to lean.
Big companies like Adobe are using it on all their apps, or some variations of Javascript.
Why shouldn't you?Sure, there are no "standard" libraries in 2D/3D, OpenGL, GUI or what's not, but if you can connect them to C/C++, you can expose them to Javascript.
But you should think about if using Javascript as a host-language is really what you want in the first place.
I have no prior programming experience in Javascript, just looking for a concise, simple language for scripting applications, preferably C-like.
All the duct-tape shell scripting languages are less flexible, there are a few C-like scripting languages but too slow and development are slow.
Newer languages suffer from weird syntax and structureand pure bad tastes.
I choose Javascript for what it provides, not because it is being used in browsers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284612</id>
	<title>Can your language do this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259689140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A lot of the comments are pointing out the problems in Javascript, and ignoring the problems in the big heavyweight languages like Java and C#.</p><p>It's not really in praise of Javascript, but a very good read is Joel's article 'Can Your Programming Language Do This?'  It accurately points out a number of ways in which Java development very quickly takes up a lot of lines of code compared to more lightweight approaches.  I personally prefer the light weight approach for many applications.</p><p><a href="http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2006/08/01.html" title="joelonsoftware.com">http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2006/08/01.html</a> [joelonsoftware.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A lot of the comments are pointing out the problems in Javascript , and ignoring the problems in the big heavyweight languages like Java and C # .It 's not really in praise of Javascript , but a very good read is Joel 's article 'Can Your Programming Language Do This ?
' It accurately points out a number of ways in which Java development very quickly takes up a lot of lines of code compared to more lightweight approaches .
I personally prefer the light weight approach for many applications.http : //www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2006/08/01.html [ joelonsoftware.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A lot of the comments are pointing out the problems in Javascript, and ignoring the problems in the big heavyweight languages like Java and C#.It's not really in praise of Javascript, but a very good read is Joel's article 'Can Your Programming Language Do This?
'  It accurately points out a number of ways in which Java development very quickly takes up a lot of lines of code compared to more lightweight approaches.
I personally prefer the light weight approach for many applications.http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2006/08/01.html [joelonsoftware.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284872</id>
	<title>Re:Javascript is actually a great language</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259690160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Adding to performance issues comment: Javascript actually becomes *faster* if you make your variable names short... 'cause everytime you do a.x it actually does a['x'], or the fact that there are no "arrays"; a[1] does a['1'], or something similarly silly. Recently tried writing a 3d animation thingie [canvas], and it's painfully slow---stuff that shouldn't be slow [and isn't in something like plain-old Java].</p><p>I really really like Javascript itself [I'm a Perl coder, and *much* of javascript reminds me of Perl]; It's very flexible, and you can prototype and conceptualize anything in it with relative ease... but they've made quite a few stupid design decisions to make performance a major issue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Adding to performance issues comment : Javascript actually becomes * faster * if you make your variable names short... 'cause everytime you do a.x it actually does a [ 'x ' ] , or the fact that there are no " arrays " ; a [ 1 ] does a [ '1 ' ] , or something similarly silly .
Recently tried writing a 3d animation thingie [ canvas ] , and it 's painfully slow---stuff that should n't be slow [ and is n't in something like plain-old Java ] .I really really like Javascript itself [ I 'm a Perl coder , and * much * of javascript reminds me of Perl ] ; It 's very flexible , and you can prototype and conceptualize anything in it with relative ease... but they 've made quite a few stupid design decisions to make performance a major issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Adding to performance issues comment: Javascript actually becomes *faster* if you make your variable names short... 'cause everytime you do a.x it actually does a['x'], or the fact that there are no "arrays"; a[1] does a['1'], or something similarly silly.
Recently tried writing a 3d animation thingie [canvas], and it's painfully slow---stuff that shouldn't be slow [and isn't in something like plain-old Java].I really really like Javascript itself [I'm a Perl coder, and *much* of javascript reminds me of Perl]; It's very flexible, and you can prototype and conceptualize anything in it with relative ease... but they've made quite a few stupid design decisions to make performance a major issue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284452</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284466</id>
	<title>Re:Javascript is actually a great language</title>
	<author>XxtraLarGe</author>
	<datestamp>1259688480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It reminds me of the lowly tomato, a member of the poisonous nightshade family of plants, which for years was considered to be inedible. These days you can't get a salad without it.</p></div><p>Javascript reminds you of tomatoes? My <a href="http://images.google.com/images?q=caesar\%20salad&amp;oe=utf-8&amp;rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&amp;client=firefox-a&amp;um=1&amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;sa=N&amp;hl=en&amp;tab=wi" title="google.com">favorite salad</a> [google.com] seldom seems to have tomatoes. I see how you got your nick name<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It reminds me of the lowly tomato , a member of the poisonous nightshade family of plants , which for years was considered to be inedible .
These days you ca n't get a salad without it.Javascript reminds you of tomatoes ?
My favorite salad [ google.com ] seldom seems to have tomatoes .
I see how you got your nick name ; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It reminds me of the lowly tomato, a member of the poisonous nightshade family of plants, which for years was considered to be inedible.
These days you can't get a salad without it.Javascript reminds you of tomatoes?
My favorite salad [google.com] seldom seems to have tomatoes.
I see how you got your nick name ;-)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284318</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284690</id>
	<title>Re:Javascript is actually a great language</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259689500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>- The speed issue is largely due to the crappy implementations of Javascript, which are improving due to competition among browsers. Javascript can be JIT-ed. What you probably can't do is compile it to native code and expect it to have the speed of C/C++. But then would *you* run arbitrary native binary code off the web? Sandboxing makes things slow again.</p><p>- I'll give you the lack of threading.</p><p>- 2D/3D libraries - C doesn't have one in its standard, C++ doesn't have one, in fact most don't. But you're free to implement one. It just doesn't make too much sense having a full fledged 2D/3D library in the browser, since that's where most javascript code are used in.</p><p>- experimental language, as in first appearing in 1995, used extensively for almost 15 years. Of course most people never really utilize its full power, but it's not the fault of the language</p><p>- And you use a "mission-critical application" written in Javascript running inside a web browser?</p><p>Don't ditch the language due to poor implementation and crappy users.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>- The speed issue is largely due to the crappy implementations of Javascript , which are improving due to competition among browsers .
Javascript can be JIT-ed .
What you probably ca n't do is compile it to native code and expect it to have the speed of C/C + + .
But then would * you * run arbitrary native binary code off the web ?
Sandboxing makes things slow again.- I 'll give you the lack of threading.- 2D/3D libraries - C does n't have one in its standard , C + + does n't have one , in fact most do n't .
But you 're free to implement one .
It just does n't make too much sense having a full fledged 2D/3D library in the browser , since that 's where most javascript code are used in.- experimental language , as in first appearing in 1995 , used extensively for almost 15 years .
Of course most people never really utilize its full power , but it 's not the fault of the language- And you use a " mission-critical application " written in Javascript running inside a web browser ? Do n't ditch the language due to poor implementation and crappy users .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>- The speed issue is largely due to the crappy implementations of Javascript, which are improving due to competition among browsers.
Javascript can be JIT-ed.
What you probably can't do is compile it to native code and expect it to have the speed of C/C++.
But then would *you* run arbitrary native binary code off the web?
Sandboxing makes things slow again.- I'll give you the lack of threading.- 2D/3D libraries - C doesn't have one in its standard, C++ doesn't have one, in fact most don't.
But you're free to implement one.
It just doesn't make too much sense having a full fledged 2D/3D library in the browser, since that's where most javascript code are used in.- experimental language, as in first appearing in 1995, used extensively for almost 15 years.
Of course most people never really utilize its full power, but it's not the fault of the language- And you use a "mission-critical application" written in Javascript running inside a web browser?Don't ditch the language due to poor implementation and crappy users.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284452</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30290034</id>
	<title>Rhino</title>
	<author>skeeto</author>
	<datestamp>1259666940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's what they did with <a href="http://www.mozilla.org/rhino/" title="mozilla.org">Rhino</a> [mozilla.org].</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's what they did with Rhino [ mozilla.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's what they did with Rhino [mozilla.org].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284314</id>
	<title>Why bother?</title>
	<author>ickleberry</author>
	<datestamp>1259687820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I actually wish JavaScript and other client-side browser scripting would be done away with completely, but JS is not a particularly 'good' language. The only advantage I can see is that thousands of Web developers can now write desktop applications. Is that necessarily a good thing? or will it just lead to more inefficient crapware?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I actually wish JavaScript and other client-side browser scripting would be done away with completely , but JS is not a particularly 'good ' language .
The only advantage I can see is that thousands of Web developers can now write desktop applications .
Is that necessarily a good thing ?
or will it just lead to more inefficient crapware ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I actually wish JavaScript and other client-side browser scripting would be done away with completely, but JS is not a particularly 'good' language.
The only advantage I can see is that thousands of Web developers can now write desktop applications.
Is that necessarily a good thing?
or will it just lead to more inefficient crapware?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30287138</id>
	<title>Re:A huge pain</title>
	<author>DieByWire</author>
	<datestamp>1259698500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm not sure why anyone would want JavaScript anywhere else.</p></div><p>Well, there are a lot of other places someone might want it...</p><ul> <li>The bottom of the Marianas Trench.... oh, wait. Submersibles can get there.</li>

<li>Deep in the bowels of a volcano. Except that a volcano might spit it out. Scratch that one.</li>

<li>Interstellar space. But if there's any intelligent life out there they'd think we were attacking them.</li> </ul><p>OK, you were right.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure why anyone would want JavaScript anywhere else.Well , there are a lot of other places someone might want it... The bottom of the Marianas Trench.... oh , wait .
Submersibles can get there .
Deep in the bowels of a volcano .
Except that a volcano might spit it out .
Scratch that one .
Interstellar space .
But if there 's any intelligent life out there they 'd think we were attacking them .
OK , you were right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure why anyone would want JavaScript anywhere else.Well, there are a lot of other places someone might want it... The bottom of the Marianas Trench.... oh, wait.
Submersibles can get there.
Deep in the bowels of a volcano.
Except that a volcano might spit it out.
Scratch that one.
Interstellar space.
But if there's any intelligent life out there they'd think we were attacking them.
OK, you were right.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284488</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30288480</id>
	<title>Re:Why bother?</title>
	<author>rated-r</author>
	<datestamp>1259660400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>
and while you're at it, you can add the missing close bracket in your sig... that certainly would not compile....</htmltext>
<tokenext>and while you 're at it , you can add the missing close bracket in your sig... that certainly would not compile... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
and while you're at it, you can add the missing close bracket in your sig... that certainly would not compile....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30285328</id>
	<title>JS SUX!!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259692260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Only clueless script kiddies use javascript.  It has no use on either the web or as a (horror of horrors) stand alone language.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Only clueless script kiddies use javascript .
It has no use on either the web or as a ( horror of horrors ) stand alone language .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Only clueless script kiddies use javascript.
It has no use on either the web or as a (horror of horrors) stand alone language.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30287632</id>
	<title>Re:Javascript is actually a great language</title>
	<author>rp</author>
	<datestamp>1259700300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem is not lack of expressive power, it's excess.  JavaScript was unmaintainable until jQuery came around.  I'll start trusting JavaScript code as soon as we get a checker that enforces some sane coding conventions based on jQeury or something equivalent (if it exists).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is not lack of expressive power , it 's excess .
JavaScript was unmaintainable until jQuery came around .
I 'll start trusting JavaScript code as soon as we get a checker that enforces some sane coding conventions based on jQeury or something equivalent ( if it exists ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is not lack of expressive power, it's excess.
JavaScript was unmaintainable until jQuery came around.
I'll start trusting JavaScript code as soon as we get a checker that enforces some sane coding conventions based on jQeury or something equivalent (if it exists).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284452</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284576</id>
	<title>Good luck with that.</title>
	<author>ears\_d</author>
	<datestamp>1259688900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As a Java coder who wants to go back to C++ I'm appalled. But, as a developer who gets beat up over the cost of my work, I can see that a scripting language could lower costs. It's not for me though.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As a Java coder who wants to go back to C + + I 'm appalled .
But , as a developer who gets beat up over the cost of my work , I can see that a scripting language could lower costs .
It 's not for me though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a Java coder who wants to go back to C++ I'm appalled.
But, as a developer who gets beat up over the cost of my work, I can see that a scripting language could lower costs.
It's not for me though.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284348</id>
	<title>Damn straight!</title>
	<author>ckaminski</author>
	<datestamp>1259687940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've been a big user of BSH ever since it came out, and before that a hacked Rhino/Spidermonkey fan for building system automation components that were scriptable via javascript.<br><br>I say bring it on.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been a big user of BSH ever since it came out , and before that a hacked Rhino/Spidermonkey fan for building system automation components that were scriptable via javascript.I say bring it on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been a big user of BSH ever since it came out, and before that a hacked Rhino/Spidermonkey fan for building system automation components that were scriptable via javascript.I say bring it on.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30286028</id>
	<title>Re:Javascript is actually a great language</title>
	<author>gbjbaanb</author>
	<datestamp>1259694900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps you should have read TFA. The CommonJS spec is the solution to all (well, maybe) the problems you've highlighted.</p><p>for example:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Modules are a big deal. CommonJS modules represent the first time a JavaScript community has converged on a module system that is as good as (if not better than) the best of Python and Ruby's--supporting not only dependency management, but also scope isolation and relative module identifiers.</p></div><p>Maybe the spec will improve to remove some of the old Netscape-era incompatibilities, or the browsers will update themselves (like with CSS and HTML) to support only the modern, 'fixed' version. That'd be a good thing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps you should have read TFA .
The CommonJS spec is the solution to all ( well , maybe ) the problems you 've highlighted.for example : Modules are a big deal .
CommonJS modules represent the first time a JavaScript community has converged on a module system that is as good as ( if not better than ) the best of Python and Ruby 's--supporting not only dependency management , but also scope isolation and relative module identifiers.Maybe the spec will improve to remove some of the old Netscape-era incompatibilities , or the browsers will update themselves ( like with CSS and HTML ) to support only the modern , 'fixed ' version .
That 'd be a good thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps you should have read TFA.
The CommonJS spec is the solution to all (well, maybe) the problems you've highlighted.for example:Modules are a big deal.
CommonJS modules represent the first time a JavaScript community has converged on a module system that is as good as (if not better than) the best of Python and Ruby's--supporting not only dependency management, but also scope isolation and relative module identifiers.Maybe the spec will improve to remove some of the old Netscape-era incompatibilities, or the browsers will update themselves (like with CSS and HTML) to support only the modern, 'fixed' version.
That'd be a good thing.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284482</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30295620</id>
	<title>The real problem</title>
	<author>jonaskoelker</author>
	<datestamp>1259583480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Use the right tool for the right job.</p></div><p>Okay.  Let's see.  I want to deliver rich applications over the web (with all the good properties of universal accessibility and no user administration) that do heavy client-side processing.  I have to write in a programming language that virtually all browsers will run.</p><p>For that, javascript is the right tool because it's the <em>only</em> tool.  It doesn't matter how ill-suited it is for the task at hand, it's all I got.</p><p>When you <em>have</em> to get that nail punched in, every tool looks like a hammer.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Use the right tool for the right job.Okay .
Let 's see .
I want to deliver rich applications over the web ( with all the good properties of universal accessibility and no user administration ) that do heavy client-side processing .
I have to write in a programming language that virtually all browsers will run.For that , javascript is the right tool because it 's the only tool .
It does n't matter how ill-suited it is for the task at hand , it 's all I got.When you have to get that nail punched in , every tool looks like a hammer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Use the right tool for the right job.Okay.
Let's see.
I want to deliver rich applications over the web (with all the good properties of universal accessibility and no user administration) that do heavy client-side processing.
I have to write in a programming language that virtually all browsers will run.For that, javascript is the right tool because it's the only tool.
It doesn't matter how ill-suited it is for the task at hand, it's all I got.When you have to get that nail punched in, every tool looks like a hammer.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284676</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30296976</id>
	<title>Re:A huge pain</title>
	<author>jrumney</author>
	<datestamp>1259595060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Debugging JS with an alert window is a horrible experience.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Which is why you use a <a href="https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/216" title="mozilla.org">Javascript Debugger</a> [mozilla.org]. Even if you're developing some IE specific abomination, Microsoft has <a href="http://timstall.dotnetdevelopersjournal.com/debugging\_javascript\_in\_visual\_studio.htm" title="dotnetdeve...ournal.com">the tools</a> [dotnetdeve...ournal.com] you need.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Debugging JS with an alert window is a horrible experience .
Which is why you use a Javascript Debugger [ mozilla.org ] .
Even if you 're developing some IE specific abomination , Microsoft has the tools [ dotnetdeve...ournal.com ] you need .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Debugging JS with an alert window is a horrible experience.
Which is why you use a Javascript Debugger [mozilla.org].
Even if you're developing some IE specific abomination, Microsoft has the tools [dotnetdeve...ournal.com] you need.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284488</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30285964</id>
	<title>Re:Javascript is actually a great language</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259694600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What non-trivial like gMail, or what let me see about every other site you visit?

You do know that javascript is a prototypical language? So you have treat it differently. Classical inheritance is not the way to do things.

Namespaces?? What are you on about. I've been using NS in javascript for years!</htmltext>
<tokenext>What non-trivial like gMail , or what let me see about every other site you visit ?
You do know that javascript is a prototypical language ?
So you have treat it differently .
Classical inheritance is not the way to do things .
Namespaces ? ? What are you on about .
I 've been using NS in javascript for years !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What non-trivial like gMail, or what let me see about every other site you visit?
You do know that javascript is a prototypical language?
So you have treat it differently.
Classical inheritance is not the way to do things.
Namespaces?? What are you on about.
I've been using NS in javascript for years!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30285310</id>
	<title>JavaScript, the BOM, and the DOM</title>
	<author>rayharris</author>
	<datestamp>1259692200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In addition to all the other things JavaScript is, it is also a hosted language. "ECMAScript is an object-oriented programming language for performing computations and manipulating computational objects within a host environment." - ECMA-262 3rd Edition.</p><p>People seem to forget there is a distinction between JavaScript, the Browser Object Model (BOM), and the Document Object Model (DOM). JavaScript has no native input or output functionality. These capabilities must be provided by the host. When the host is the web browser, there is a fairly well followed standard for JavaScript, there is a partially followed standard for the DOM, and there is no standard for the BOM.</p><p>The reason that people still hate JavaScript is not because of the inconsistent implementations of JavaScript. In fact, JavaScript has been implemented fairly consistently. No, the reason people hate JavaScript is because of the inconsistent implementations of the BOM and the DOM.</p><p>If you look in the ECMAScript specification, there is no method named alert. Where does it come from? The host environment. If IE 9 changed the name of the alert method to displayMessage, there would be an uproar that Microsoft "broke" JavaScript. When, in fact, they would have broken an unwritten BOM standard that said the browser would provide a host-based method named alert. It's a subtle, but important distinction.</p><p>What is broken is the implementation of the DOM. Some parts of the DOM are implemented consistently. Some parts are horribly different. In IE 8, Microsoft (allegedly) worked on fixing problems with their implementation of CSS. Their implementation of the DOM, however, is basically unchanged from IE 6. This is why web developers still hate IE. Not JavaScript, but the DOM.</p><p>As mentioned in other posts above, JavaScript has already broken out of the browser. But is has landed in other hosted environments. ActionScript in Flash is just JavaScript with the "Flash Object Model" instead of the BOM/DOM. You can use JavaScript in Photoshop using the "PhotoShop Object Model" to script the manipulation of images.</p><p>The effort here is to provide a "System Object Model" to JavaScript so that JavaScript can interact with the OS more directly. The success of that effort will be based on how well they design the host objects for JavaScript to work with and how consistently those standards are followed. Not on the fact that they're using JavaScript.</p><p>And JavaScript on the server is nothing new. I've got an old copy of "Pure JavaScript" by Wyke, Gilliam, and Ting published in 1999 that discusses server-side JavaScript on the Netscape web server. It includes objects to work with form data, files, databases, and e-mail servers.</p><p>Am I condoning the efforts to expand the use of JavaScript? No. I just want people that "hate JavaScript" to understand a little better what it is they hate. And I want the proponents of breaking JavaScript out of the browser to realize there are people who went before them and if they stop and look around for a second, there are lessons to be learned before the repeat old mistakes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In addition to all the other things JavaScript is , it is also a hosted language .
" ECMAScript is an object-oriented programming language for performing computations and manipulating computational objects within a host environment .
" - ECMA-262 3rd Edition.People seem to forget there is a distinction between JavaScript , the Browser Object Model ( BOM ) , and the Document Object Model ( DOM ) .
JavaScript has no native input or output functionality .
These capabilities must be provided by the host .
When the host is the web browser , there is a fairly well followed standard for JavaScript , there is a partially followed standard for the DOM , and there is no standard for the BOM.The reason that people still hate JavaScript is not because of the inconsistent implementations of JavaScript .
In fact , JavaScript has been implemented fairly consistently .
No , the reason people hate JavaScript is because of the inconsistent implementations of the BOM and the DOM.If you look in the ECMAScript specification , there is no method named alert .
Where does it come from ?
The host environment .
If IE 9 changed the name of the alert method to displayMessage , there would be an uproar that Microsoft " broke " JavaScript .
When , in fact , they would have broken an unwritten BOM standard that said the browser would provide a host-based method named alert .
It 's a subtle , but important distinction.What is broken is the implementation of the DOM .
Some parts of the DOM are implemented consistently .
Some parts are horribly different .
In IE 8 , Microsoft ( allegedly ) worked on fixing problems with their implementation of CSS .
Their implementation of the DOM , however , is basically unchanged from IE 6 .
This is why web developers still hate IE .
Not JavaScript , but the DOM.As mentioned in other posts above , JavaScript has already broken out of the browser .
But is has landed in other hosted environments .
ActionScript in Flash is just JavaScript with the " Flash Object Model " instead of the BOM/DOM .
You can use JavaScript in Photoshop using the " PhotoShop Object Model " to script the manipulation of images.The effort here is to provide a " System Object Model " to JavaScript so that JavaScript can interact with the OS more directly .
The success of that effort will be based on how well they design the host objects for JavaScript to work with and how consistently those standards are followed .
Not on the fact that they 're using JavaScript.And JavaScript on the server is nothing new .
I 've got an old copy of " Pure JavaScript " by Wyke , Gilliam , and Ting published in 1999 that discusses server-side JavaScript on the Netscape web server .
It includes objects to work with form data , files , databases , and e-mail servers.Am I condoning the efforts to expand the use of JavaScript ?
No. I just want people that " hate JavaScript " to understand a little better what it is they hate .
And I want the proponents of breaking JavaScript out of the browser to realize there are people who went before them and if they stop and look around for a second , there are lessons to be learned before the repeat old mistakes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In addition to all the other things JavaScript is, it is also a hosted language.
"ECMAScript is an object-oriented programming language for performing computations and manipulating computational objects within a host environment.
" - ECMA-262 3rd Edition.People seem to forget there is a distinction between JavaScript, the Browser Object Model (BOM), and the Document Object Model (DOM).
JavaScript has no native input or output functionality.
These capabilities must be provided by the host.
When the host is the web browser, there is a fairly well followed standard for JavaScript, there is a partially followed standard for the DOM, and there is no standard for the BOM.The reason that people still hate JavaScript is not because of the inconsistent implementations of JavaScript.
In fact, JavaScript has been implemented fairly consistently.
No, the reason people hate JavaScript is because of the inconsistent implementations of the BOM and the DOM.If you look in the ECMAScript specification, there is no method named alert.
Where does it come from?
The host environment.
If IE 9 changed the name of the alert method to displayMessage, there would be an uproar that Microsoft "broke" JavaScript.
When, in fact, they would have broken an unwritten BOM standard that said the browser would provide a host-based method named alert.
It's a subtle, but important distinction.What is broken is the implementation of the DOM.
Some parts of the DOM are implemented consistently.
Some parts are horribly different.
In IE 8, Microsoft (allegedly) worked on fixing problems with their implementation of CSS.
Their implementation of the DOM, however, is basically unchanged from IE 6.
This is why web developers still hate IE.
Not JavaScript, but the DOM.As mentioned in other posts above, JavaScript has already broken out of the browser.
But is has landed in other hosted environments.
ActionScript in Flash is just JavaScript with the "Flash Object Model" instead of the BOM/DOM.
You can use JavaScript in Photoshop using the "PhotoShop Object Model" to script the manipulation of images.The effort here is to provide a "System Object Model" to JavaScript so that JavaScript can interact with the OS more directly.
The success of that effort will be based on how well they design the host objects for JavaScript to work with and how consistently those standards are followed.
Not on the fact that they're using JavaScript.And JavaScript on the server is nothing new.
I've got an old copy of "Pure JavaScript" by Wyke, Gilliam, and Ting published in 1999 that discusses server-side JavaScript on the Netscape web server.
It includes objects to work with form data, files, databases, and e-mail servers.Am I condoning the efforts to expand the use of JavaScript?
No. I just want people that "hate JavaScript" to understand a little better what it is they hate.
And I want the proponents of breaking JavaScript out of the browser to realize there are people who went before them and if they stop and look around for a second, there are lessons to be learned before the repeat old mistakes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30289132</id>
	<title>Re:Most of you don't know what you are talking abo</title>
	<author>eabrek</author>
	<datestamp>1259663160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All IMNSHO (I don't know JS, but I do know a lot of other languages)</p><ul>
<li>C# is a bad Java clone (tainted by MS)</li>
<li>Java is a dumbed down version of C++</li>
<li>C++ tries to be a better C (and largely fails)</li>
<li>C is 30 years old, and shows it</li>
</ul><p>How does JS compare to a good, modern language - like Python or <a href="http://www.digitalmars.com/d/index.html" title="digitalmars.com" rel="nofollow">D</a> [digitalmars.com]?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All IMNSHO ( I do n't know JS , but I do know a lot of other languages ) C # is a bad Java clone ( tainted by MS ) Java is a dumbed down version of C + + C + + tries to be a better C ( and largely fails ) C is 30 years old , and shows it How does JS compare to a good , modern language - like Python or D [ digitalmars.com ] ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All IMNSHO (I don't know JS, but I do know a lot of other languages)
C# is a bad Java clone (tainted by MS)
Java is a dumbed down version of C++
C++ tries to be a better C (and largely fails)
C is 30 years old, and shows it
How does JS compare to a good, modern language - like Python or D [digitalmars.com]?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30286598</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30286436</id>
	<title>Re:Why bother?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259696280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apples and Oranges.</p><p>"Complete" JavaScript includes way too much browser-specific shit.  Take out stuff that is not core JavaScript, and suddenly the two books are of the same order of magnitude.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apples and Oranges .
" Complete " JavaScript includes way too much browser-specific shit .
Take out stuff that is not core JavaScript , and suddenly the two books are of the same order of magnitude .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apples and Oranges.
"Complete" JavaScript includes way too much browser-specific shit.
Take out stuff that is not core JavaScript, and suddenly the two books are of the same order of magnitude.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30285160</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284482</id>
	<title>Re:Javascript is actually a great language</title>
	<author>maraist</author>
	<datestamp>1259688540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>With no feature-set testing capability coupled with the intent of handing off raw code to 3rd party virtual engines.  With no 'reference' platform to validate code (with such simple things as which string functions are supported) and no useful error messages when making language library mistakes (nor any type-safety to determine it out of the box).  And with respect to dynamicity, no equivalent 'perl -c foo.pl', 'use strict', or '-warn' pragma.  No package namespaces.  No legitimate mechanism of loading 3'rd party library files, much less a way of namespace collision resolution/isolation.  No defined order of execution (some run in-line, others run on browser completely loaded, etc).<br><br>I'd instead say that Javascript is a frustrating language that's gotten too much rep.  The fact that people migrate towards 3'rd party libraries to standardize simple programming operations (like jQuery / GWT) is a testament to how bad it's legacy has gotten - when trying to do 'real' work.<br><br>Sure a command-line javascript can define it's own standard and I'm confident that it can solve all these problems.. That's the great thing about standards - everybody's got one.</htmltext>
<tokenext>With no feature-set testing capability coupled with the intent of handing off raw code to 3rd party virtual engines .
With no 'reference ' platform to validate code ( with such simple things as which string functions are supported ) and no useful error messages when making language library mistakes ( nor any type-safety to determine it out of the box ) .
And with respect to dynamicity , no equivalent 'perl -c foo.pl ' , 'use strict ' , or '-warn ' pragma .
No package namespaces .
No legitimate mechanism of loading 3'rd party library files , much less a way of namespace collision resolution/isolation .
No defined order of execution ( some run in-line , others run on browser completely loaded , etc ) .I 'd instead say that Javascript is a frustrating language that 's gotten too much rep. The fact that people migrate towards 3'rd party libraries to standardize simple programming operations ( like jQuery / GWT ) is a testament to how bad it 's legacy has gotten - when trying to do 'real ' work.Sure a command-line javascript can define it 's own standard and I 'm confident that it can solve all these problems.. That 's the great thing about standards - everybody 's got one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With no feature-set testing capability coupled with the intent of handing off raw code to 3rd party virtual engines.
With no 'reference' platform to validate code (with such simple things as which string functions are supported) and no useful error messages when making language library mistakes (nor any type-safety to determine it out of the box).
And with respect to dynamicity, no equivalent 'perl -c foo.pl', 'use strict', or '-warn' pragma.
No package namespaces.
No legitimate mechanism of loading 3'rd party library files, much less a way of namespace collision resolution/isolation.
No defined order of execution (some run in-line, others run on browser completely loaded, etc).I'd instead say that Javascript is a frustrating language that's gotten too much rep.  The fact that people migrate towards 3'rd party libraries to standardize simple programming operations (like jQuery / GWT) is a testament to how bad it's legacy has gotten - when trying to do 'real' work.Sure a command-line javascript can define it's own standard and I'm confident that it can solve all these problems.. That's the great thing about standards - everybody's got one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284318</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284470</id>
	<title>Javascript...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259688480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>the Johnny Knoxville of programming languages</htmltext>
<tokenext>the Johnny Knoxville of programming languages</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the Johnny Knoxville of programming languages</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284518</id>
	<title>Lexical closures "advanced"?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259688660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>C'mon. Perl has them. Lua has them. Ruby has them. Sheesh -- even Python has them. I'd guess even PHP has lexical closures these days. Advanced? You just disqualified yourself. Under which kind of rock have you been living the last 30 years?</p><p>Besides, I'd rather compare Javascript to a Gingko fruit. The stink is similar<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-D</p><p>[wow: captcha was "discord". This slashcode is developing some prescient intelligence, I fear]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>C'mon .
Perl has them .
Lua has them .
Ruby has them .
Sheesh -- even Python has them .
I 'd guess even PHP has lexical closures these days .
Advanced ? You just disqualified yourself .
Under which kind of rock have you been living the last 30 years ? Besides , I 'd rather compare Javascript to a Gingko fruit .
The stink is similar ; -D [ wow : captcha was " discord " .
This slashcode is developing some prescient intelligence , I fear ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>C'mon.
Perl has them.
Lua has them.
Ruby has them.
Sheesh -- even Python has them.
I'd guess even PHP has lexical closures these days.
Advanced? You just disqualified yourself.
Under which kind of rock have you been living the last 30 years?Besides, I'd rather compare Javascript to a Gingko fruit.
The stink is similar ;-D[wow: captcha was "discord".
This slashcode is developing some prescient intelligence, I fear]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284318</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30289222</id>
	<title>Re:Why bother?</title>
	<author>Toonol</author>
	<datestamp>1259663700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's good to know... but I'm not sure, at that point, that it's any better than Javascript.  Except, of course, when Javascript is blocked.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's good to know... but I 'm not sure , at that point , that it 's any better than Javascript .
Except , of course , when Javascript is blocked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's good to know... but I'm not sure, at that point, that it's any better than Javascript.
Except, of course, when Javascript is blocked.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30288004</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30316462</id>
	<title>Re:Works for what it's supposed to do</title>
	<author>kaffiene</author>
	<datestamp>1259835900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I absolutely agree.</p><p>BUT people *are* trying to write large systems with JavaScript now (applications on the web) and for those things, JS's deficiencies DO matter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I absolutely agree.BUT people * are * trying to write large systems with JavaScript now ( applications on the web ) and for those things , JS 's deficiencies DO matter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I absolutely agree.BUT people *are* trying to write large systems with JavaScript now (applications on the web) and for those things, JS's deficiencies DO matter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284676</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30294344</id>
	<title>Re:Javascript is actually a great language</title>
	<author>failrate</author>
	<datestamp>1259696760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Re: 2D/3D libraries<br>
<br>
 -Binding SpiderMonkey to openGL took me about a week and a half as a hobby project, and I'm not a particularly good C programmer.  The result was an easy to use 3D livecoding environment that performed good enough for games.  I had plenty of places in the JavaScript engine choice, binding and openGL calls to improve performance as well, but given the advent of webGL, I assumed that the proof of concept had outlived its purpose.
<br>

-If you prefer 2D, it is just as easy to bind it to libSDL.  I didn't make much use of the graphics, but I used the basic sound functions to create a 256 channel additive sine synthesis soft instrument.  Again, plenty of room to optimize (didn't even use sdl\_mixer), and it meant that I was able to tweak the instrument code while it was running.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Re : 2D/3D libraries -Binding SpiderMonkey to openGL took me about a week and a half as a hobby project , and I 'm not a particularly good C programmer .
The result was an easy to use 3D livecoding environment that performed good enough for games .
I had plenty of places in the JavaScript engine choice , binding and openGL calls to improve performance as well , but given the advent of webGL , I assumed that the proof of concept had outlived its purpose .
-If you prefer 2D , it is just as easy to bind it to libSDL .
I did n't make much use of the graphics , but I used the basic sound functions to create a 256 channel additive sine synthesis soft instrument .
Again , plenty of room to optimize ( did n't even use sdl \ _mixer ) , and it meant that I was able to tweak the instrument code while it was running .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Re: 2D/3D libraries

 -Binding SpiderMonkey to openGL took me about a week and a half as a hobby project, and I'm not a particularly good C programmer.
The result was an easy to use 3D livecoding environment that performed good enough for games.
I had plenty of places in the JavaScript engine choice, binding and openGL calls to improve performance as well, but given the advent of webGL, I assumed that the proof of concept had outlived its purpose.
-If you prefer 2D, it is just as easy to bind it to libSDL.
I didn't make much use of the graphics, but I used the basic sound functions to create a 256 channel additive sine synthesis soft instrument.
Again, plenty of room to optimize (didn't even use sdl\_mixer), and it meant that I was able to tweak the instrument code while it was running.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284690</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284676</id>
	<title>Works for what it's supposed to do</title>
	<author>gestalt\_n\_pepper</author>
	<datestamp>1259689440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's a tolerable front end language for browsers. It's not as flexible or as fast as C++, but here's a newsflash to the "I'm living in Mom's basement crowd." It doesn't have to be.</p><p>It can suck up resources and not be especially fast and not be able to manipulate pointers or be much good for creating new classes and....</p><p>(sing it with me now) IT DOESN'T MATTER AND 99.99\% OF WEB DEVELOPERS DON'T CARE.</p><p>Not all languages are  C++, or Ruby, or Java or anything. Nor should they be. Use the right tool for the right job.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a tolerable front end language for browsers .
It 's not as flexible or as fast as C + + , but here 's a newsflash to the " I 'm living in Mom 's basement crowd .
" It does n't have to be.It can suck up resources and not be especially fast and not be able to manipulate pointers or be much good for creating new classes and.... ( sing it with me now ) IT DOES N'T MATTER AND 99.99 \ % OF WEB DEVELOPERS DO N'T CARE.Not all languages are C + + , or Ruby , or Java or anything .
Nor should they be .
Use the right tool for the right job .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a tolerable front end language for browsers.
It's not as flexible or as fast as C++, but here's a newsflash to the "I'm living in Mom's basement crowd.
" It doesn't have to be.It can suck up resources and not be especially fast and not be able to manipulate pointers or be much good for creating new classes and....(sing it with me now) IT DOESN'T MATTER AND 99.99\% OF WEB DEVELOPERS DON'T CARE.Not all languages are  C++, or Ruby, or Java or anything.
Nor should they be.
Use the right tool for the right job.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284840</id>
	<title>Cross Compatibility</title>
	<author>Tarlus</author>
	<datestamp>1259690040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just make the damn thing behave exactly the same way in every browser and I'll be sound as a pound!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just make the damn thing behave exactly the same way in every browser and I 'll be sound as a pound !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just make the damn thing behave exactly the same way in every browser and I'll be sound as a pound!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284672</id>
	<title>It has potential...</title>
	<author>LitelySalted</author>
	<datestamp>1259689440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would say that JavaScript has potential, just like Luke Skywalker.  Both had the ability to do great things and both had/have the ability to do terrible things.</p><p>Question is... who is.. Who's JavaScript's father?  And will he lead him down the dark side?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would say that JavaScript has potential , just like Luke Skywalker .
Both had the ability to do great things and both had/have the ability to do terrible things.Question is... who is.. Who 's JavaScript 's father ?
And will he lead him down the dark side ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would say that JavaScript has potential, just like Luke Skywalker.
Both had the ability to do great things and both had/have the ability to do terrible things.Question is... who is.. Who's JavaScript's father?
And will he lead him down the dark side?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30285068</id>
	<title>Re:Why bother?</title>
	<author>Red Flayer</author>
	<datestamp>1259691060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I am not comfortable with JavaScript and it is effecting my 7337 status.</p></div></blockquote><p>That's unfortunate... though perhaps now you could join the ranks of those with 1337 status?<br> <br>OTOH, maybe you were referring to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teat" title="wikipedia.org">TEAT</a> [wikipedia.org] status, in which case... your ideas intrigue me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am not comfortable with JavaScript and it is effecting my 7337 status.That 's unfortunate... though perhaps now you could join the ranks of those with 1337 status ?
OTOH , maybe you were referring to TEAT [ wikipedia.org ] status , in which case... your ideas intrigue me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am not comfortable with JavaScript and it is effecting my 7337 status.That's unfortunate... though perhaps now you could join the ranks of those with 1337 status?
OTOH, maybe you were referring to TEAT [wikipedia.org] status, in which case... your ideas intrigue me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284590</id>
	<title>Script Engine out of the Browser?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259688960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sure <i>a</i> JavaScript engine may have shipped on "every computer ever" but it's been embedded into a browser. So the next step is to decouple it from that browser-based engine and use it to create local apps?</p><p>What would you run this script engine in? A Virtual Machine? Some kind of embedded OS Framework? A behind-the-scenes browser instance (shudder).</p><p>Either way, I don't get it, what magical app could I write <i>only</i> with JavaScript that I couldn't write with something else? Actually I do kind of get it, there are probably a lot of JavaScript hackers out there that would want to write desktop apps but are afraid to jump into something like Java or<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure a JavaScript engine may have shipped on " every computer ever " but it 's been embedded into a browser .
So the next step is to decouple it from that browser-based engine and use it to create local apps ? What would you run this script engine in ?
A Virtual Machine ?
Some kind of embedded OS Framework ?
A behind-the-scenes browser instance ( shudder ) .Either way , I do n't get it , what magical app could I write only with JavaScript that I could n't write with something else ?
Actually I do kind of get it , there are probably a lot of JavaScript hackers out there that would want to write desktop apps but are afraid to jump into something like Java or .NET .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure a JavaScript engine may have shipped on "every computer ever" but it's been embedded into a browser.
So the next step is to decouple it from that browser-based engine and use it to create local apps?What would you run this script engine in?
A Virtual Machine?
Some kind of embedded OS Framework?
A behind-the-scenes browser instance (shudder).Either way, I don't get it, what magical app could I write only with JavaScript that I couldn't write with something else?
Actually I do kind of get it, there are probably a lot of JavaScript hackers out there that would want to write desktop apps but are afraid to jump into something like Java or .NET.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30316608</id>
	<title>Re:Your bias shows: You can't program shit!</title>
	<author>kaffiene</author>
	<datestamp>1259836260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Utter rubbish.  I don't like Python because I hate the significant white space thing.  BUT Python is considerably better designed than JS.  JS has a pile of huge warts to it that prevent its suitablility for large scale engineering.  Python does not share any of those weaknesses:</p><p>Everything is global<br>no namespaces<br>no include/import!!!!<br>no block level scope<br>
&nbsp; the array iterator busts array prototype extension and vice versa<br>no way to avoid prototype extension clashes<br>no packages / modules</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Utter rubbish .
I do n't like Python because I hate the significant white space thing .
BUT Python is considerably better designed than JS .
JS has a pile of huge warts to it that prevent its suitablility for large scale engineering .
Python does not share any of those weaknesses : Everything is globalno namespacesno include/import ! ! !
! no block level scope   the array iterator busts array prototype extension and vice versano way to avoid prototype extension clashesno packages / modules</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Utter rubbish.
I don't like Python because I hate the significant white space thing.
BUT Python is considerably better designed than JS.
JS has a pile of huge warts to it that prevent its suitablility for large scale engineering.
Python does not share any of those weaknesses:Everything is globalno namespacesno include/import!!!
!no block level scope
  the array iterator busts array prototype extension and vice versano way to avoid prototype extension clashesno packages / modules</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284984</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30295510</id>
	<title>Re:Getting JS out of the browser is a *great* idea</title>
	<author>dkf</author>
	<datestamp>1259582040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Scripts are fine for small mundane tasks, they're NOT good for building applications.</p></div><p>A lot of the very largest applications are scripted (in various languages). If you've got a choice between writing a million lines of script or a hundred million lines of C, it's a real no-brainer.</p><p>Well, in fact the massive apps use a mix of different languages, typically crafting components in a low-level language that the high-level scripting language composes to create the overall application. That tends to be the most productive approach; the alternative "One True Language" method is silly.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Scripts are fine for small mundane tasks , they 're NOT good for building applications.A lot of the very largest applications are scripted ( in various languages ) .
If you 've got a choice between writing a million lines of script or a hundred million lines of C , it 's a real no-brainer.Well , in fact the massive apps use a mix of different languages , typically crafting components in a low-level language that the high-level scripting language composes to create the overall application .
That tends to be the most productive approach ; the alternative " One True Language " method is silly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Scripts are fine for small mundane tasks, they're NOT good for building applications.A lot of the very largest applications are scripted (in various languages).
If you've got a choice between writing a million lines of script or a hundred million lines of C, it's a real no-brainer.Well, in fact the massive apps use a mix of different languages, typically crafting components in a low-level language that the high-level scripting language composes to create the overall application.
That tends to be the most productive approach; the alternative "One True Language" method is silly.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284710</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30289094</id>
	<title>Re:A huge pain</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259662980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can't believe you were modded insightful while talking about debugging using alert(). Why would you ever want to do that? Hell I'd go so far as to stick in XHR for remote logging into a script rather than debug using modal dialogs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't believe you were modded insightful while talking about debugging using alert ( ) .
Why would you ever want to do that ?
Hell I 'd go so far as to stick in XHR for remote logging into a script rather than debug using modal dialogs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't believe you were modded insightful while talking about debugging using alert().
Why would you ever want to do that?
Hell I'd go so far as to stick in XHR for remote logging into a script rather than debug using modal dialogs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284488</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284828</id>
	<title>Re:Why bother?</title>
	<author>SanityInAnarchy</author>
	<datestamp>1259689980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I actually wish JavaScript and other client-side browser scripting would be done away with completely,</p></div><p>Why?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>JS is not a particularly 'good' language.</p></div><p>People who say this very often don't know Javascript well at all. It's Lisp in C's clothing. It's actually a surprisingly elegant language -- it has a few warts, but they are almost certainly not what you're thinking of.</p><p>Google Douglas Crockford.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I actually wish JavaScript and other client-side browser scripting would be done away with completely,Why ? JS is not a particularly 'good ' language.People who say this very often do n't know Javascript well at all .
It 's Lisp in C 's clothing .
It 's actually a surprisingly elegant language -- it has a few warts , but they are almost certainly not what you 're thinking of.Google Douglas Crockford .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I actually wish JavaScript and other client-side browser scripting would be done away with completely,Why?JS is not a particularly 'good' language.People who say this very often don't know Javascript well at all.
It's Lisp in C's clothing.
It's actually a surprisingly elegant language -- it has a few warts, but they are almost certainly not what you're thinking of.Google Douglas Crockford.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284314</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30288402</id>
	<title>Re:Javascript is actually a great language</title>
	<author>Sancho</author>
	<datestamp>1259660100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Define "flaw."  The fact that it's different from other languages is not a flaw.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Variables are global by default, leading to accidental memory leaks, conflicts and various other fun things.</p></div><p>There's a mechanism for declaring variables with either global scope or functional scope.  Without a <b>var</b> prefix, it has global scope.  I'm not sure I'd consider that "default."  If anything, in my opinion, the preferred behavior would be to only have explicit scope and not allow variables to be declared without a prefix.  Something like "global b" or "local a" to declare the scope.  That said, if you see a variable declared without <b>var</b>, you know that it's global, and you should treat it as such.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>A lack of namespaces.</p></div><p>This is probably my single biggest gripe.  I've also been disgusted with the same problem in PHP.</p><p>But it's not entirely true.  You can simulate namespaces well enough.  The real problem is people redefining Object and cluttering up the global namespace.  This means that it can be impossible to use two libraries together if they both try to (re)define the same methods.</p><p>It would be nice if the language held our hands on this, but ultimately the real blame lies with the developers who don't know the language that they're coding in, or who don't care about interoperability.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Lack of block scope (despite the fact the language has blocks)</p></div><p>This is nothing more than a design decision.  It's not a flaw.  One of the biggest problem programmers have with Javascript is that it looks a lot like C, but it doesn't act very much like C.  This causes a certain amount of cognitive dissonance, and leads to programming errors, such as assuming that Javascript has block scope.</p><p>A weirder example looks like this:</p><p>a = 1;<br>function f() {<br>alert (a);<br>var a = 2;<br>alert (a);<br>}</p><p>IIRC, the first alert will be undefined because the variable is declared <b>somewhere</b> in the function, even though it's declared after the first use.  Most C programmers probably expect the value of the variable to only be overridden after the local declaration.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Define " flaw .
" The fact that it 's different from other languages is not a flaw.Variables are global by default , leading to accidental memory leaks , conflicts and various other fun things.There 's a mechanism for declaring variables with either global scope or functional scope .
Without a var prefix , it has global scope .
I 'm not sure I 'd consider that " default .
" If anything , in my opinion , the preferred behavior would be to only have explicit scope and not allow variables to be declared without a prefix .
Something like " global b " or " local a " to declare the scope .
That said , if you see a variable declared without var , you know that it 's global , and you should treat it as such.A lack of namespaces.This is probably my single biggest gripe .
I 've also been disgusted with the same problem in PHP.But it 's not entirely true .
You can simulate namespaces well enough .
The real problem is people redefining Object and cluttering up the global namespace .
This means that it can be impossible to use two libraries together if they both try to ( re ) define the same methods.It would be nice if the language held our hands on this , but ultimately the real blame lies with the developers who do n't know the language that they 're coding in , or who do n't care about interoperability.Lack of block scope ( despite the fact the language has blocks ) This is nothing more than a design decision .
It 's not a flaw .
One of the biggest problem programmers have with Javascript is that it looks a lot like C , but it does n't act very much like C. This causes a certain amount of cognitive dissonance , and leads to programming errors , such as assuming that Javascript has block scope.A weirder example looks like this : a = 1 ; function f ( ) { alert ( a ) ; var a = 2 ; alert ( a ) ; } IIRC , the first alert will be undefined because the variable is declared somewhere in the function , even though it 's declared after the first use .
Most C programmers probably expect the value of the variable to only be overridden after the local declaration .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Define "flaw.
"  The fact that it's different from other languages is not a flaw.Variables are global by default, leading to accidental memory leaks, conflicts and various other fun things.There's a mechanism for declaring variables with either global scope or functional scope.
Without a var prefix, it has global scope.
I'm not sure I'd consider that "default.
"  If anything, in my opinion, the preferred behavior would be to only have explicit scope and not allow variables to be declared without a prefix.
Something like "global b" or "local a" to declare the scope.
That said, if you see a variable declared without var, you know that it's global, and you should treat it as such.A lack of namespaces.This is probably my single biggest gripe.
I've also been disgusted with the same problem in PHP.But it's not entirely true.
You can simulate namespaces well enough.
The real problem is people redefining Object and cluttering up the global namespace.
This means that it can be impossible to use two libraries together if they both try to (re)define the same methods.It would be nice if the language held our hands on this, but ultimately the real blame lies with the developers who don't know the language that they're coding in, or who don't care about interoperability.Lack of block scope (despite the fact the language has blocks)This is nothing more than a design decision.
It's not a flaw.
One of the biggest problem programmers have with Javascript is that it looks a lot like C, but it doesn't act very much like C.  This causes a certain amount of cognitive dissonance, and leads to programming errors, such as assuming that Javascript has block scope.A weirder example looks like this:a = 1;function f() {alert (a);var a = 2;alert (a);}IIRC, the first alert will be undefined because the variable is declared somewhere in the function, even though it's declared after the first use.
Most C programmers probably expect the value of the variable to only be overridden after the local declaration.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30287454</id>
	<title>Re:What what most sites use Javascript for...</title>
	<author>ivucica</author>
	<datestamp>1259699640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There's too much web-based software out there to drop Javascript support now. A lot of stuff that was formerly done through Javascript is nowadays done through CSS (dropdown menus for example).<br>
<br>
Far greater problem is enormous complexity that browser must have in order to produce correct layout based on combo of CSS, tables and all other elements in there. Frankly I'm amazed that it works with the speed that it does work with. Complexity is not only in Javascript, but more-so in rendering engine itself. Mozilla's Javascript is already a separate library; just go ahead and remove it and see what you get.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's too much web-based software out there to drop Javascript support now .
A lot of stuff that was formerly done through Javascript is nowadays done through CSS ( dropdown menus for example ) .
Far greater problem is enormous complexity that browser must have in order to produce correct layout based on combo of CSS , tables and all other elements in there .
Frankly I 'm amazed that it works with the speed that it does work with .
Complexity is not only in Javascript , but more-so in rendering engine itself .
Mozilla 's Javascript is already a separate library ; just go ahead and remove it and see what you get .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's too much web-based software out there to drop Javascript support now.
A lot of stuff that was formerly done through Javascript is nowadays done through CSS (dropdown menus for example).
Far greater problem is enormous complexity that browser must have in order to produce correct layout based on combo of CSS, tables and all other elements in there.
Frankly I'm amazed that it works with the speed that it does work with.
Complexity is not only in Javascript, but more-so in rendering engine itself.
Mozilla's Javascript is already a separate library; just go ahead and remove it and see what you get.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284476</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30287080</id>
	<title>Re:Javascript is actually a great language</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259698380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>'use strict' is in ECMA5</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>'use strict ' is in ECMA5</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'use strict' is in ECMA5</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284482</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30318128</id>
	<title>Why not 2D/3D in the browser?</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1259841780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The speed issue is largely due to the crappy implementations of Javascript</p></div><p>A language is only as fast as its implementations unless you lead a company that is willing to spend millions on a new implementation.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>What you probably can't do is compile it to native code and expect it to have the speed of C/C++.</p></div><p>In ECMAScript, as in Lua, the only numeric type is a double-precision floating point number, and the only data structure is an associative array. An associative array from doubles to doubles takes 16 times as much space in the data cache, in RAM, and in the swap file compared to a linear array of tiny integers ("bytes"). At some point, switching from ECMAScript to Java, which provides a richer selection of efficient types, becomes a good idea.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>2D/3D libraries - C doesn't have one in its standard, C++ doesn't have one</p></div><p>ECMAScript alone doesn't have the HTML and CSS DOM; that's the job of the web browser that adds libraries to ECMAScript to make JavaScript. Likewise, all three major PC operating systems add OpenGL and GLUT libraries to C++ to make C++-With-OpenGL-Support.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>It just doesn't make too much sense having a full fledged 2D/3D library in the browser</p></div><p>Why does it just not make too much sense? What is the appropriate way to provide client-side visualization of information retrieved from a web service without requiring each user to seek administrative approval to install a native app?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>And you use a "mission-critical application" written in Javascript running inside a web browser?</p></div><p>Our mission is to make money by providing a desirable product to customers. The step of deploying our application to our consumers is critical to our mission, and this step needs an appropriate platform.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The speed issue is largely due to the crappy implementations of JavascriptA language is only as fast as its implementations unless you lead a company that is willing to spend millions on a new implementation.What you probably ca n't do is compile it to native code and expect it to have the speed of C/C + + .In ECMAScript , as in Lua , the only numeric type is a double-precision floating point number , and the only data structure is an associative array .
An associative array from doubles to doubles takes 16 times as much space in the data cache , in RAM , and in the swap file compared to a linear array of tiny integers ( " bytes " ) .
At some point , switching from ECMAScript to Java , which provides a richer selection of efficient types , becomes a good idea.2D/3D libraries - C does n't have one in its standard , C + + does n't have oneECMAScript alone does n't have the HTML and CSS DOM ; that 's the job of the web browser that adds libraries to ECMAScript to make JavaScript .
Likewise , all three major PC operating systems add OpenGL and GLUT libraries to C + + to make C + + -With-OpenGL-Support.It just does n't make too much sense having a full fledged 2D/3D library in the browserWhy does it just not make too much sense ?
What is the appropriate way to provide client-side visualization of information retrieved from a web service without requiring each user to seek administrative approval to install a native app ? And you use a " mission-critical application " written in Javascript running inside a web browser ? Our mission is to make money by providing a desirable product to customers .
The step of deploying our application to our consumers is critical to our mission , and this step needs an appropriate platform .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The speed issue is largely due to the crappy implementations of JavascriptA language is only as fast as its implementations unless you lead a company that is willing to spend millions on a new implementation.What you probably can't do is compile it to native code and expect it to have the speed of C/C++.In ECMAScript, as in Lua, the only numeric type is a double-precision floating point number, and the only data structure is an associative array.
An associative array from doubles to doubles takes 16 times as much space in the data cache, in RAM, and in the swap file compared to a linear array of tiny integers ("bytes").
At some point, switching from ECMAScript to Java, which provides a richer selection of efficient types, becomes a good idea.2D/3D libraries - C doesn't have one in its standard, C++ doesn't have oneECMAScript alone doesn't have the HTML and CSS DOM; that's the job of the web browser that adds libraries to ECMAScript to make JavaScript.
Likewise, all three major PC operating systems add OpenGL and GLUT libraries to C++ to make C++-With-OpenGL-Support.It just doesn't make too much sense having a full fledged 2D/3D library in the browserWhy does it just not make too much sense?
What is the appropriate way to provide client-side visualization of information retrieved from a web service without requiring each user to seek administrative approval to install a native app?And you use a "mission-critical application" written in Javascript running inside a web browser?Our mission is to make money by providing a desirable product to customers.
The step of deploying our application to our consumers is critical to our mission, and this step needs an appropriate platform.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284690</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30319732</id>
	<title>Re:A huge pain</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1259851200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>if your argument is based on what a given person will have installed on their machine by default, you've still got Flash and Java.</p></div><p>Nintendo rejected Sun's plug-in. Apple rejected both Adobe's plug-in and Sun's plug-in.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>if your argument is based on what a given person will have installed on their machine by default , you 've still got Flash and Java.Nintendo rejected Sun 's plug-in .
Apple rejected both Adobe 's plug-in and Sun 's plug-in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if your argument is based on what a given person will have installed on their machine by default, you've still got Flash and Java.Nintendo rejected Sun's plug-in.
Apple rejected both Adobe's plug-in and Sun's plug-in.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30294436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284452</id>
	<title>Re:Javascript is actually a great language</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259688420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps it's a great language, but it reduced modern Core i7 computers to performance of a 486, negating 15 years of computing revolution. Inability to perform CPU-intensive computations due to these dynamic types of yours, lack of threading or any other explicit or implicit parallelism support, no library facilities to modern 2D/3D graphics libraries. Javascript is a nice experimental language like so many others but it shouldn't be running 90\% of mission-critical applications.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps it 's a great language , but it reduced modern Core i7 computers to performance of a 486 , negating 15 years of computing revolution .
Inability to perform CPU-intensive computations due to these dynamic types of yours , lack of threading or any other explicit or implicit parallelism support , no library facilities to modern 2D/3D graphics libraries .
Javascript is a nice experimental language like so many others but it should n't be running 90 \ % of mission-critical applications .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps it's a great language, but it reduced modern Core i7 computers to performance of a 486, negating 15 years of computing revolution.
Inability to perform CPU-intensive computations due to these dynamic types of yours, lack of threading or any other explicit or implicit parallelism support, no library facilities to modern 2D/3D graphics libraries.
Javascript is a nice experimental language like so many others but it shouldn't be running 90\% of mission-critical applications.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284318</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284792</id>
	<title>Javascript: The Good Parts</title>
	<author>slim</author>
	<datestamp>1259689860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is the book that'll make you realise Javascript is OK:<br><a href="http://oreilly.com/catalog/9780596517748" title="oreilly.com">http://oreilly.com/catalog/9780596517748</a> [oreilly.com]</p><p>It's not afraid to call out the bad parts, and to show you how to work around them. That's down to a rushed standardization process.</p><p>It doesn't deal with the DOM at all - after all, that's not part of JS.</p><p>It leaves you thinking JS is pretty neat, if you use it right.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is the book that 'll make you realise Javascript is OK : http : //oreilly.com/catalog/9780596517748 [ oreilly.com ] It 's not afraid to call out the bad parts , and to show you how to work around them .
That 's down to a rushed standardization process.It does n't deal with the DOM at all - after all , that 's not part of JS.It leaves you thinking JS is pretty neat , if you use it right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is the book that'll make you realise Javascript is OK:http://oreilly.com/catalog/9780596517748 [oreilly.com]It's not afraid to call out the bad parts, and to show you how to work around them.
That's down to a rushed standardization process.It doesn't deal with the DOM at all - after all, that's not part of JS.It leaves you thinking JS is pretty neat, if you use it right.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30285302</id>
	<title>Re:Javascript is actually a great language</title>
	<author>Inda</author>
	<datestamp>1259692140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I used to love writing JS server side (ASP + IIS). I only stopped because of the lack of examples and documentation on the net. VBS became the norm - yuk.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I used to love writing JS server side ( ASP + IIS ) .
I only stopped because of the lack of examples and documentation on the net .
VBS became the norm - yuk .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I used to love writing JS server side (ASP + IIS).
I only stopped because of the lack of examples and documentation on the net.
VBS became the norm - yuk.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30286840</id>
	<title>Re:Why bother?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259697540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That whole issue is irrelevant. Javascript, just like any other peeve language you may dislike, exists and is widely deployed right now, and therefore <em>will</em> be implemented, no matter what <em>anybody</em> wants.  May as well do a good job implementing it, so that when people have to run some javascript, they can do it with minimum lameness.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That whole issue is irrelevant .
Javascript , just like any other peeve language you may dislike , exists and is widely deployed right now , and therefore will be implemented , no matter what anybody wants .
May as well do a good job implementing it , so that when people have to run some javascript , they can do it with minimum lameness .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That whole issue is irrelevant.
Javascript, just like any other peeve language you may dislike, exists and is widely deployed right now, and therefore will be implemented, no matter what anybody wants.
May as well do a good job implementing it, so that when people have to run some javascript, they can do it with minimum lameness.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284314</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30286338</id>
	<title>Re:Getting JS out of the browser is a *great* idea</title>
	<author>aztracker1</author>
	<datestamp>1259695920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Tell that to all the Python developers... This is not meant as flame-bait, only pointing out the fact that yes, interpreted languages are perfectly suited to developing applications.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Tell that to all the Python developers... This is not meant as flame-bait , only pointing out the fact that yes , interpreted languages are perfectly suited to developing applications .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tell that to all the Python developers... This is not meant as flame-bait, only pointing out the fact that yes, interpreted languages are perfectly suited to developing applications.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284710</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30287170</id>
	<title>Re:Why bother?</title>
	<author>physburn</author>
	<datestamp>1259698620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If client-side scripting went away, we'd lose a lot of functionality from
websites. For example, editors for blogs and many forums, need javascript
to work they link buttons. Widgets and many interactive website can
dynamically update parts of a page using Ajax again javascript based. The
web would be a poorer place without JS. Yes I agree that JS is a rather poor
language, it grew into the browser, without any great design thoughts, and
has many annoying language faults, i particular don't like declaring everything
as 'var' instead of give a type for it, it leads to errors and hurts readability.
<p>
---
</p><p>
<a href="http://www.feeddistiller.com/blogs/Javascript\%20Programming/feed.html" title="feeddistiller.com">JavaScript Programming</a> [feeddistiller.com] Feed @ <a href="http://www.feeddistiller.com/" title="feeddistiller.com">Feed Distiller</a> [feeddistiller.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If client-side scripting went away , we 'd lose a lot of functionality from websites .
For example , editors for blogs and many forums , need javascript to work they link buttons .
Widgets and many interactive website can dynamically update parts of a page using Ajax again javascript based .
The web would be a poorer place without JS .
Yes I agree that JS is a rather poor language , it grew into the browser , without any great design thoughts , and has many annoying language faults , i particular do n't like declaring everything as 'var ' instead of give a type for it , it leads to errors and hurts readability .
--- JavaScript Programming [ feeddistiller.com ] Feed @ Feed Distiller [ feeddistiller.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If client-side scripting went away, we'd lose a lot of functionality from
websites.
For example, editors for blogs and many forums, need javascript
to work they link buttons.
Widgets and many interactive website can
dynamically update parts of a page using Ajax again javascript based.
The
web would be a poorer place without JS.
Yes I agree that JS is a rather poor
language, it grew into the browser, without any great design thoughts, and
has many annoying language faults, i particular don't like declaring everything
as 'var' instead of give a type for it, it leads to errors and hurts readability.
---

JavaScript Programming [feeddistiller.com] Feed @ Feed Distiller [feeddistiller.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284314</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284542</id>
	<title>Re:Javascript is actually a great language</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1259688780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most of Javascript's bad reputation come from the W3C's DOM. When the majority of programmers think "Javascript," they're actually thinking "Javascript + DOM," and since the DOM is so awful, they think Javascript is awful as well. Not so.</p><p>Pair Javascript with a decent library, and it's extremely powerful. Maybe not as suited for large projects as languages with namespaces, but its template system and introspection features are simply amazing. If anybody ever writes a program that evolves itself until it becomes super-intelligent and takes over the Earth, it'll probably be written in Javascript.</p><p>Correction to the parent, though: Javascript isn't an object-oriented language in the classic definition of the term... it lacks many features to make it truly OOP. Instead, it's based around object templating, which is nearly as powerful, but not the same thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most of Javascript 's bad reputation come from the W3C 's DOM .
When the majority of programmers think " Javascript , " they 're actually thinking " Javascript + DOM , " and since the DOM is so awful , they think Javascript is awful as well .
Not so.Pair Javascript with a decent library , and it 's extremely powerful .
Maybe not as suited for large projects as languages with namespaces , but its template system and introspection features are simply amazing .
If anybody ever writes a program that evolves itself until it becomes super-intelligent and takes over the Earth , it 'll probably be written in Javascript.Correction to the parent , though : Javascript is n't an object-oriented language in the classic definition of the term... it lacks many features to make it truly OOP .
Instead , it 's based around object templating , which is nearly as powerful , but not the same thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most of Javascript's bad reputation come from the W3C's DOM.
When the majority of programmers think "Javascript," they're actually thinking "Javascript + DOM," and since the DOM is so awful, they think Javascript is awful as well.
Not so.Pair Javascript with a decent library, and it's extremely powerful.
Maybe not as suited for large projects as languages with namespaces, but its template system and introspection features are simply amazing.
If anybody ever writes a program that evolves itself until it becomes super-intelligent and takes over the Earth, it'll probably be written in Javascript.Correction to the parent, though: Javascript isn't an object-oriented language in the classic definition of the term... it lacks many features to make it truly OOP.
Instead, it's based around object templating, which is nearly as powerful, but not the same thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284318</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284488</id>
	<title>A huge pain</title>
	<author>mafian911</author>
	<datestamp>1259688540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm not sure why anyone would want JavaScript anywhere else. I believe that the only reason why JavaScript is "popular" in the first place is because it is the <em>only</em> option available for client-side processing on the web.<br> <br> A lot of the pain of JS, like its inconsistent experience across browsers, can't really be held against it. Each browser has to implement JS according to its own interpretation of the standard, virtually guaranteeing a non-consistent experience across the board. I understand that. But what truly kills JavaScript for me is the lack of development tools and a solid reference. Debugging JS with an alert window is a horrible experience.<br> <br>Again, why anyone would want this stuff everywhere is beyond me. I was shocked a long time ago when Palm Pre decided it was a good idea to use JavaScript for app development. Shocked I tell you. And look where that went. Like I said, the only reason I would consider JS "popular" on the web is because there is no other way to do client-side processing. It's literally our only choice (VBScript doesn't count).</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure why anyone would want JavaScript anywhere else .
I believe that the only reason why JavaScript is " popular " in the first place is because it is the only option available for client-side processing on the web .
A lot of the pain of JS , like its inconsistent experience across browsers , ca n't really be held against it .
Each browser has to implement JS according to its own interpretation of the standard , virtually guaranteeing a non-consistent experience across the board .
I understand that .
But what truly kills JavaScript for me is the lack of development tools and a solid reference .
Debugging JS with an alert window is a horrible experience .
Again , why anyone would want this stuff everywhere is beyond me .
I was shocked a long time ago when Palm Pre decided it was a good idea to use JavaScript for app development .
Shocked I tell you .
And look where that went .
Like I said , the only reason I would consider JS " popular " on the web is because there is no other way to do client-side processing .
It 's literally our only choice ( VBScript does n't count ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure why anyone would want JavaScript anywhere else.
I believe that the only reason why JavaScript is "popular" in the first place is because it is the only option available for client-side processing on the web.
A lot of the pain of JS, like its inconsistent experience across browsers, can't really be held against it.
Each browser has to implement JS according to its own interpretation of the standard, virtually guaranteeing a non-consistent experience across the board.
I understand that.
But what truly kills JavaScript for me is the lack of development tools and a solid reference.
Debugging JS with an alert window is a horrible experience.
Again, why anyone would want this stuff everywhere is beyond me.
I was shocked a long time ago when Palm Pre decided it was a good idea to use JavaScript for app development.
Shocked I tell you.
And look where that went.
Like I said, the only reason I would consider JS "popular" on the web is because there is no other way to do client-side processing.
It's literally our only choice (VBScript doesn't count).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30305196</id>
	<title>Re:Javascript is actually a great language</title>
	<author>multipart/mixed</author>
	<datestamp>1259584800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That was an interesting link.  The outlier, regex-dna is kind of funny -- regexes are compiled directly to native assembly code on tracemonkey. I'll bet the benchmarker's regex library compiles to an intermediary representation for processing through a state machine of some kind.</p><p>So, if I'm right, the inverted performance ratio is a result of the C code generating interpreted regex and the JS code generating native regex compilation.  That's kind of hilarious.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That was an interesting link .
The outlier , regex-dna is kind of funny -- regexes are compiled directly to native assembly code on tracemonkey .
I 'll bet the benchmarker 's regex library compiles to an intermediary representation for processing through a state machine of some kind.So , if I 'm right , the inverted performance ratio is a result of the C code generating interpreted regex and the JS code generating native regex compilation .
That 's kind of hilarious .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That was an interesting link.
The outlier, regex-dna is kind of funny -- regexes are compiled directly to native assembly code on tracemonkey.
I'll bet the benchmarker's regex library compiles to an intermediary representation for processing through a state machine of some kind.So, if I'm right, the inverted performance ratio is a result of the C code generating interpreted regex and the JS code generating native regex compilation.
That's kind of hilarious.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30291150</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284476</id>
	<title>What what most sites use Javascript for...</title>
	<author>Viol8</author>
	<datestamp>1259688480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... the browser might just as well support GWBasic. However fancy javascript may be , it doesn't take the worlds most advanced scripting language to to do pop up windows<nobr> <wbr></nobr>,mouseover events and selective loading.</p><p>Instead of trying to makd the browser a cut down OS as both MS and Firefox coders seem to be headed for, they should go back to basics and make the browser a simple reliable graphics display program with some user I/O thrown in. Not some bloated monstrosity that has all the reliability of a 20 year old unserviced Trabant. Having to support an ever more complex OO interpreted language doesn't help this reliability.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... the browser might just as well support GWBasic .
However fancy javascript may be , it does n't take the worlds most advanced scripting language to to do pop up windows ,mouseover events and selective loading.Instead of trying to makd the browser a cut down OS as both MS and Firefox coders seem to be headed for , they should go back to basics and make the browser a simple reliable graphics display program with some user I/O thrown in .
Not some bloated monstrosity that has all the reliability of a 20 year old unserviced Trabant .
Having to support an ever more complex OO interpreted language does n't help this reliability .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... the browser might just as well support GWBasic.
However fancy javascript may be , it doesn't take the worlds most advanced scripting language to to do pop up windows ,mouseover events and selective loading.Instead of trying to makd the browser a cut down OS as both MS and Firefox coders seem to be headed for, they should go back to basics and make the browser a simple reliable graphics display program with some user I/O thrown in.
Not some bloated monstrosity that has all the reliability of a 20 year old unserviced Trabant.
Having to support an ever more complex OO interpreted language doesn't help this reliability.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284318</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30292576</id>
	<title>Re:Javascript is actually a great language</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259680620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Some sort of interpreted language was needed for the web, to run untrusted code in a secure way. C couldn't be<br>&gt; used for that. So it was a slow language or no language, back then. The only alternative at the time was Java</p><p>There was no need to write a new language, they should have just stuck a TCL interpretor in the browser and called it a day. For what they were doing in 1995 it would have been better in every way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Some sort of interpreted language was needed for the web , to run untrusted code in a secure way .
C could n't be &gt; used for that .
So it was a slow language or no language , back then .
The only alternative at the time was JavaThere was no need to write a new language , they should have just stuck a TCL interpretor in the browser and called it a day .
For what they were doing in 1995 it would have been better in every way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Some sort of interpreted language was needed for the web, to run untrusted code in a secure way.
C couldn't be&gt; used for that.
So it was a slow language or no language, back then.
The only alternative at the time was JavaThere was no need to write a new language, they should have just stuck a TCL interpretor in the browser and called it a day.
For what they were doing in 1995 it would have been better in every way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30285988</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284462</id>
	<title>Better Idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259688420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think everyone can agree what we really need is web-executable COBOL.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think everyone can agree what we really need is web-executable COBOL .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think everyone can agree what we really need is web-executable COBOL.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30287372</id>
	<title>Re:Javascript is actually a great language</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259699400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Javascript is an ECMA script scripting language. Script script script. Scripts arn't the same as full featured programming language.</p><p>1) Of course all variables are global. Its a scripting language!</p><p>2) I use namespaces in javascript all the time. They're simply global objects with sub properties. Different way of performing the same concept. Again, its a dynamic scripting language!</p><p>3) If you're using block scoping, you're trying too hard. Its a scripting language. Make things that are the level of a scripting language.</p><p>Script.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Javascript is an ECMA script scripting language .
Script script script .
Scripts ar n't the same as full featured programming language.1 ) Of course all variables are global .
Its a scripting language ! 2 ) I use namespaces in javascript all the time .
They 're simply global objects with sub properties .
Different way of performing the same concept .
Again , its a dynamic scripting language ! 3 ) If you 're using block scoping , you 're trying too hard .
Its a scripting language .
Make things that are the level of a scripting language.Script .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Javascript is an ECMA script scripting language.
Script script script.
Scripts arn't the same as full featured programming language.1) Of course all variables are global.
Its a scripting language!2) I use namespaces in javascript all the time.
They're simply global objects with sub properties.
Different way of performing the same concept.
Again, its a dynamic scripting language!3) If you're using block scoping, you're trying too hard.
Its a scripting language.
Make things that are the level of a scripting language.Script.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30289228</id>
	<title>Threading and 2D/3D</title>
	<author>weston</author>
	<datestamp>1259663700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I'll give you the lack of threading.</i></p><p>Why? For many uses, the asynchronous/parallel execution you get from setTimeout and setInterval work great. And if you're working on Mozilla's Rhino, you can use Java's threads.</p><p><i>2D/3D libraries</i></p><p>I think your larger point that many languages don't have this built in by default is a good one, but I wanted to point out there's some great stuff emerging on top of the canvas tag and SVG, and again, if you're not working in the browser, you're welcome to help yourself to anything Java's got by using Rhino.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll give you the lack of threading.Why ?
For many uses , the asynchronous/parallel execution you get from setTimeout and setInterval work great .
And if you 're working on Mozilla 's Rhino , you can use Java 's threads.2D/3D librariesI think your larger point that many languages do n't have this built in by default is a good one , but I wanted to point out there 's some great stuff emerging on top of the canvas tag and SVG , and again , if you 're not working in the browser , you 're welcome to help yourself to anything Java 's got by using Rhino .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll give you the lack of threading.Why?
For many uses, the asynchronous/parallel execution you get from setTimeout and setInterval work great.
And if you're working on Mozilla's Rhino, you can use Java's threads.2D/3D librariesI think your larger point that many languages don't have this built in by default is a good one, but I wanted to point out there's some great stuff emerging on top of the canvas tag and SVG, and again, if you're not working in the browser, you're welcome to help yourself to anything Java's got by using Rhino.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284690</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284710</id>
	<title>Re:Getting JS out of the browser is a *great* idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259689560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree; JS should be taken out of the browser... but not how the article suggests.  It should NOT be brought to the desktop, and it should be obsoleted in the browser.</p><p>Its a steaming pile who's replacement is long overdue.</p><p>Scripts are fine for small mundane tasks, they're NOT good for building applications.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree ; JS should be taken out of the browser... but not how the article suggests .
It should NOT be brought to the desktop , and it should be obsoleted in the browser.Its a steaming pile who 's replacement is long overdue.Scripts are fine for small mundane tasks , they 're NOT good for building applications .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree; JS should be taken out of the browser... but not how the article suggests.
It should NOT be brought to the desktop, and it should be obsoleted in the browser.Its a steaming pile who's replacement is long overdue.Scripts are fine for small mundane tasks, they're NOT good for building applications.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284446</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30286598</id>
	<title>Most of you don't know what you are talking about</title>
	<author>elnyka</author>
	<datestamp>1259696880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>A lot of the "JS sux" crowd seem stuck in the Netscape era, recalling the horrors of javascript coding on geocities-look-alike websites that bloomed and died (like red tides) during the dot-com boom.<p>

RIAs that work well on IE and FireFox (the predominant browsers used in commercial sectors) are being developed today in JavaScript with jquery, gwt or dojo. And crappy client-side applications are being written as well. But anyone with a modicum of work experience knows that the responsibility of writing shitty applications rest squarely on the developer. </p><p>

Some of the crappiest, worst code I've seen had been written on Java, C# and C++. And also, some of the clearest, most maintainable and elegant pieces of code I've seen were written in FoxPro and JavaScript. Every single language sucks in one aspect or another. </p><p>

A good software professional, a pragmatic one, he looks at the language, at the tool, works around the problems and gets the stuff done with it in a clean manner. </p><p>

Shitty programmer OTOH will screw it up no matter what.</p><p>

And coding divas will get all emotionally attached to a given language, throwing subjective infantile rants towards whatever language they don't like recalling anecdotal memories mixed with technical impressions too superficial to be called "first-hand educated knowledge".</p><p>

I don't like JS global scoping and lack of namespaces, but I do love it's object prototyping capabilities and support for functional programming. You can write some really complex client-side, browser-running systems with a brevity and clarity you cannot match with Java or C#. </p><p>

That is the reality. It is a perfect tool? Nope. It is a good tool for what it is intended to? Yes. You can't get emotional against a tool, specially if you have never been able (or are incapable or have never assigned) to create a good NON-TRIVIAL application with  it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A lot of the " JS sux " crowd seem stuck in the Netscape era , recalling the horrors of javascript coding on geocities-look-alike websites that bloomed and died ( like red tides ) during the dot-com boom .
RIAs that work well on IE and FireFox ( the predominant browsers used in commercial sectors ) are being developed today in JavaScript with jquery , gwt or dojo .
And crappy client-side applications are being written as well .
But anyone with a modicum of work experience knows that the responsibility of writing shitty applications rest squarely on the developer .
Some of the crappiest , worst code I 've seen had been written on Java , C # and C + + .
And also , some of the clearest , most maintainable and elegant pieces of code I 've seen were written in FoxPro and JavaScript .
Every single language sucks in one aspect or another .
A good software professional , a pragmatic one , he looks at the language , at the tool , works around the problems and gets the stuff done with it in a clean manner .
Shitty programmer OTOH will screw it up no matter what .
And coding divas will get all emotionally attached to a given language , throwing subjective infantile rants towards whatever language they do n't like recalling anecdotal memories mixed with technical impressions too superficial to be called " first-hand educated knowledge " .
I do n't like JS global scoping and lack of namespaces , but I do love it 's object prototyping capabilities and support for functional programming .
You can write some really complex client-side , browser-running systems with a brevity and clarity you can not match with Java or C # .
That is the reality .
It is a perfect tool ?
Nope. It is a good tool for what it is intended to ?
Yes. You ca n't get emotional against a tool , specially if you have never been able ( or are incapable or have never assigned ) to create a good NON-TRIVIAL application with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A lot of the "JS sux" crowd seem stuck in the Netscape era, recalling the horrors of javascript coding on geocities-look-alike websites that bloomed and died (like red tides) during the dot-com boom.
RIAs that work well on IE and FireFox (the predominant browsers used in commercial sectors) are being developed today in JavaScript with jquery, gwt or dojo.
And crappy client-side applications are being written as well.
But anyone with a modicum of work experience knows that the responsibility of writing shitty applications rest squarely on the developer.
Some of the crappiest, worst code I've seen had been written on Java, C# and C++.
And also, some of the clearest, most maintainable and elegant pieces of code I've seen were written in FoxPro and JavaScript.
Every single language sucks in one aspect or another.
A good software professional, a pragmatic one, he looks at the language, at the tool, works around the problems and gets the stuff done with it in a clean manner.
Shitty programmer OTOH will screw it up no matter what.
And coding divas will get all emotionally attached to a given language, throwing subjective infantile rants towards whatever language they don't like recalling anecdotal memories mixed with technical impressions too superficial to be called "first-hand educated knowledge".
I don't like JS global scoping and lack of namespaces, but I do love it's object prototyping capabilities and support for functional programming.
You can write some really complex client-side, browser-running systems with a brevity and clarity you cannot match with Java or C#.
That is the reality.
It is a perfect tool?
Nope. It is a good tool for what it is intended to?
Yes. You can't get emotional against a tool, specially if you have never been able (or are incapable or have never assigned) to create a good NON-TRIVIAL application with  it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30287202</id>
	<title>Re:javascript is good</title>
	<author>ZeRu</author>
	<datestamp>1259698740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If you think JavaScript is a crime against humanity</p></div><p>I totally don't understand how anybody could think like that. Sure, javascript lets you mess lots of things up if you're a bad or sloppy coder, but in server-client world of web applications for some stuff it has no alternative (or the alternative would be user-unfriendly at best).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you think JavaScript is a crime against humanityI totally do n't understand how anybody could think like that .
Sure , javascript lets you mess lots of things up if you 're a bad or sloppy coder , but in server-client world of web applications for some stuff it has no alternative ( or the alternative would be user-unfriendly at best ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you think JavaScript is a crime against humanityI totally don't understand how anybody could think like that.
Sure, javascript lets you mess lots of things up if you're a bad or sloppy coder, but in server-client world of web applications for some stuff it has no alternative (or the alternative would be user-unfriendly at best).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284260</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30286084</id>
	<title>Re:JS needs threads</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259695080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It needs threads. I know the unwashed masses don't know what to do with them, but if you *do* know, then they can really be used to make much simpler code.</p></div><p>Explain to me what kind of <b>client-side, browser-running</b> work requires explicit usage of threads and how this will <b>actually and definitely</b> will lead to much simpler <b>client-side, browser-running</b> code? *** </p><p> I'm looking forward to see some examples of this.</p><p>

*** not to mention that out of all concurrency models possible, the things you ask for client-side code is threads. Fantastic.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It needs threads .
I know the unwashed masses do n't know what to do with them , but if you * do * know , then they can really be used to make much simpler code.Explain to me what kind of client-side , browser-running work requires explicit usage of threads and how this will actually and definitely will lead to much simpler client-side , browser-running code ?
* * * I 'm looking forward to see some examples of this .
* * * not to mention that out of all concurrency models possible , the things you ask for client-side code is threads .
Fantastic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It needs threads.
I know the unwashed masses don't know what to do with them, but if you *do* know, then they can really be used to make much simpler code.Explain to me what kind of client-side, browser-running work requires explicit usage of threads and how this will actually and definitely will lead to much simpler client-side, browser-running code?
***  I'm looking forward to see some examples of this.
*** not to mention that out of all concurrency models possible, the things you ask for client-side code is threads.
Fantastic.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30285114</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30295470</id>
	<title>Scala!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259581380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Stop the insanity and use Scala, EVERYONE!!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Stop the insanity and use Scala , EVERYONE !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stop the insanity and use Scala, EVERYONE!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30286070</id>
	<title>Re:Can your language do this</title>
	<author>pydev</author>
	<datestamp>1259695020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>More features and more expressiveness don't automatically make a language better; they may make software harder to maintainn and they may cost performance.</p><p>And Joel doesn't know what he is talking about anyway.  In the same article, he says:</p><p>"The very fact that Google invented MapReduce"</p><p>Google didn't invent MapReduce.  Map-reduce has been around as a technique for massively parallel programming since the 1980's.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>More features and more expressiveness do n't automatically make a language better ; they may make software harder to maintainn and they may cost performance.And Joel does n't know what he is talking about anyway .
In the same article , he says : " The very fact that Google invented MapReduce " Google did n't invent MapReduce .
Map-reduce has been around as a technique for massively parallel programming since the 1980 's .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More features and more expressiveness don't automatically make a language better; they may make software harder to maintainn and they may cost performance.And Joel doesn't know what he is talking about anyway.
In the same article, he says:"The very fact that Google invented MapReduce"Google didn't invent MapReduce.
Map-reduce has been around as a technique for massively parallel programming since the 1980's.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284612</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30285988</id>
	<title>Re:Javascript is actually a great language</title>
	<author>kripkenstein</author>
	<datestamp>1259694720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Perhaps it's a great language, but it reduced modern Core i7 computers to performance of a 486, negating 15 years of computing revolution.</p></div><ul>
<li>Some sort of interpreted language was needed for the web, to run untrusted code in a secure way. C couldn't be used for that. So it was a slow language or no language, back then. The only alternative at the time was Java, but it actually had worse performance in the way that most mattered to the web - startup times (not much use if it gets fast later on, if you need to wait an annoyingly long time for each page).</li><li>New JavaScript engines are slower than C, but by less than an order of magnitude - and getting faster. There is no <b>theoretical</b> reason why they can't run fast ('dynamic types' isn't enough of a reason - modern tracing, hidden classes, etc. approaches can deal with that).</li></ul></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps it 's a great language , but it reduced modern Core i7 computers to performance of a 486 , negating 15 years of computing revolution .
Some sort of interpreted language was needed for the web , to run untrusted code in a secure way .
C could n't be used for that .
So it was a slow language or no language , back then .
The only alternative at the time was Java , but it actually had worse performance in the way that most mattered to the web - startup times ( not much use if it gets fast later on , if you need to wait an annoyingly long time for each page ) .New JavaScript engines are slower than C , but by less than an order of magnitude - and getting faster .
There is no theoretical reason why they ca n't run fast ( 'dynamic types ' is n't enough of a reason - modern tracing , hidden classes , etc .
approaches can deal with that ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps it's a great language, but it reduced modern Core i7 computers to performance of a 486, negating 15 years of computing revolution.
Some sort of interpreted language was needed for the web, to run untrusted code in a secure way.
C couldn't be used for that.
So it was a slow language or no language, back then.
The only alternative at the time was Java, but it actually had worse performance in the way that most mattered to the web - startup times (not much use if it gets fast later on, if you need to wait an annoyingly long time for each page).New JavaScript engines are slower than C, but by less than an order of magnitude - and getting faster.
There is no theoretical reason why they can't run fast ('dynamic types' isn't enough of a reason - modern tracing, hidden classes, etc.
approaches can deal with that).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284452</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30285020</id>
	<title>Spinal Tap coders</title>
	<author>ubrgeek</author>
	<datestamp>1259690820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt; <i>efforts to take JavaScript to the next level</i> <br> <br>
This one goes to 11.</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; efforts to take JavaScript to the next level This one goes to 11 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; efforts to take JavaScript to the next level  
This one goes to 11.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30286616</id>
	<title>Re:Javascript is actually a great language</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259696940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>"Variables are global by default, leading to accidental memory leaks, conflicts and various other fun things."</i></p><p>agreed.</p><p><i>"A lack of namespaces."</i></p><p>Unless our ideas of namespace are different, JS totally supports namespaces, i.e.</p><p><tt><br>var com = {<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; foo: {<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; bar: {<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; baz: 1<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; }<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; }<br>};</tt></p><p><tt>var baz = 2;</tt></p><p><tt>alert(com.foo.bar.baz)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>// shows 1<br>alert(baz)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>// shows 2<br></tt></p><p><i>"Lack of block scope (despite the fact the language has blocks),"</i></p><p>Again, totally doable:</p><p><tt><br>function a() {<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; var b = 1;<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; var block = {<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; b: 2<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; };</tt></p><p><tt>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; alert(b);<nobr> <wbr></nobr>// shows 1<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; alert(block.b);<nobr> <wbr></nobr>// shows 2<br>}<br></tt></p><p>It seems your last two arguments are gripes about syntax.  That's fine.  We all have our preferences.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Variables are global by default , leading to accidental memory leaks , conflicts and various other fun things. " agreed .
" A lack of namespaces .
" Unless our ideas of namespace are different , JS totally supports namespaces , i.e.var com = {         foo : {                 bar : {                       baz : 1                 }         } } ; var baz = 2 ; alert ( com.foo.bar.baz ) // shows 1alert ( baz ) // shows 2 " Lack of block scope ( despite the fact the language has blocks ) , " Again , totally doable : function a ( ) {         var b = 1 ;         var block = {                 b : 2         } ;         alert ( b ) ; // shows 1         alert ( block.b ) ; // shows 2 } It seems your last two arguments are gripes about syntax .
That 's fine .
We all have our preferences .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Variables are global by default, leading to accidental memory leaks, conflicts and various other fun things."agreed.
"A lack of namespaces.
"Unless our ideas of namespace are different, JS totally supports namespaces, i.e.var com = {
        foo: {
                bar: {
                      baz: 1
                }
        }};var baz = 2;alert(com.foo.bar.baz) // shows 1alert(baz) // shows 2"Lack of block scope (despite the fact the language has blocks),"Again, totally doable:function a() {
        var b = 1;
        var block = {
                b: 2
        };
        alert(b); // shows 1
        alert(block.b); // shows 2}It seems your last two arguments are gripes about syntax.
That's fine.
We all have our preferences.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30287144</id>
	<title>Re:Javascript is actually a great language</title>
	<author>tixxit</author>
	<datestamp>1259698560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1) Wrap your scripts in a function call:</p><p>

<tt>(function(){<br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>// stuff goes here.<br>
global\_var = 1;<br>
var local\_var = 2;<br>
})();</tt>

</p><p>2) You can easily impose your own namespacing (many projects do).</p><p>

<tt>
(function() {<br>
my\_ns = {};<br>
my\_ns.my\_var =<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<br>
})();
</tt>

</p><p>3) Wrap your blocks in a function call:</p><p>

<tt>
function a() {<br>
  var b = 1;<br>
  (function() {<br>
    var b  =2;<br>
  })();<br>
  alert(b);<nobr> <wbr></nobr>// alerts 1<br>
}
</tt></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) Wrap your scripts in a function call : ( function ( ) { // stuff goes here .
global \ _var = 1 ; var local \ _var = 2 ; } ) ( ) ; 2 ) You can easily impose your own namespacing ( many projects do ) .
( function ( ) { my \ _ns = { } ; my \ _ns.my \ _var = .. . } ) ( ) ; 3 ) Wrap your blocks in a function call : function a ( ) { var b = 1 ; ( function ( ) { var b = 2 ; } ) ( ) ; alert ( b ) ; // alerts 1 }</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) Wrap your scripts in a function call:

(function(){ // stuff goes here.
global\_var = 1;
var local\_var = 2;
})();

2) You can easily impose your own namespacing (many projects do).
(function() {
my\_ns = {};
my\_ns.my\_var = ...
})();


3) Wrap your blocks in a function call:


function a() {
  var b = 1;
  (function() {
    var b  =2;
  })();
  alert(b); // alerts 1
}
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30285214</id>
	<title>Re:Getting JS out of the browser is a *great* idea</title>
	<author>brundlefly</author>
	<datestamp>1259691780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>&gt;&gt; The willful violation of the javascript object model for document.all in HTML5 (see bottom of page) is one particularly nasty example...</i> </p><p>Not really nasty to implement at all:</p><p>

<tt>
get document all() {<br>
    return document.getElementById.apply(document, arguments);<br>
}
</tt>

</p><p>That's interpreted code, of course, not native code.  But if you're in the business of writing parsers and compilers, rolling that into native code is about a 10-minute operation.</p><p>Now... I <i>might</i> agree with you that it's misleading to newbies to design a language such that a potentially ubiquitous and expensive call to an external technology (the DOM) is hidden behind a seemingly innocent property lookup.  But there again, expensiveness of such a call is an artifact of how browsers are coded, not a deficiency in design.</p><p>In principle, there's nothing wrong with providing a associative-array-like API to an action which performs a flat lookup within a namespace of unique keys [albeit admittedly unenforced in this case].  Python, Ruby, JavaScript and most other functional languages offer this functionality as standard fare.</p><p>Pick a different example....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; The willful violation of the javascript object model for document.all in HTML5 ( see bottom of page ) is one particularly nasty example... Not really nasty to implement at all : get document all ( ) { return document.getElementById.apply ( document , arguments ) ; } That 's interpreted code , of course , not native code .
But if you 're in the business of writing parsers and compilers , rolling that into native code is about a 10-minute operation.Now... I might agree with you that it 's misleading to newbies to design a language such that a potentially ubiquitous and expensive call to an external technology ( the DOM ) is hidden behind a seemingly innocent property lookup .
But there again , expensiveness of such a call is an artifact of how browsers are coded , not a deficiency in design.In principle , there 's nothing wrong with providing a associative-array-like API to an action which performs a flat lookup within a namespace of unique keys [ albeit admittedly unenforced in this case ] .
Python , Ruby , JavaScript and most other functional languages offer this functionality as standard fare.Pick a different example... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> &gt;&gt; The willful violation of the javascript object model for document.all in HTML5 (see bottom of page) is one particularly nasty example... Not really nasty to implement at all:


get document all() {
    return document.getElementById.apply(document, arguments);
}


That's interpreted code, of course, not native code.
But if you're in the business of writing parsers and compilers, rolling that into native code is about a 10-minute operation.Now... I might agree with you that it's misleading to newbies to design a language such that a potentially ubiquitous and expensive call to an external technology (the DOM) is hidden behind a seemingly innocent property lookup.
But there again, expensiveness of such a call is an artifact of how browsers are coded, not a deficiency in design.In principle, there's nothing wrong with providing a associative-array-like API to an action which performs a flat lookup within a namespace of unique keys [albeit admittedly unenforced in this case].
Python, Ruby, JavaScript and most other functional languages offer this functionality as standard fare.Pick a different example....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284446</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30285584</id>
	<title>Re:c++ is good</title>
	<author>Doug Neal</author>
	<datestamp>1259693280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>it's just sometimes, it's a resource hog.</i> </p><p>A bad workman always blames his tools</p></div><p>The logical fallacy in this cliche has always irritated me.</p><p>- If all bad workmen blame their tools, does it follow that all workmen that blame their tools are bad ones?<br>- If all dogs are animals with four legs*, does it follow that all animals with four legs are dogs?</p><p>* Excluding accidents and birth defects</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>it 's just sometimes , it 's a resource hog .
A bad workman always blames his toolsThe logical fallacy in this cliche has always irritated me.- If all bad workmen blame their tools , does it follow that all workmen that blame their tools are bad ones ? - If all dogs are animals with four legs * , does it follow that all animals with four legs are dogs ?
* Excluding accidents and birth defects</tokentext>
<sentencetext> it's just sometimes, it's a resource hog.
A bad workman always blames his toolsThe logical fallacy in this cliche has always irritated me.- If all bad workmen blame their tools, does it follow that all workmen that blame their tools are bad ones?- If all dogs are animals with four legs*, does it follow that all animals with four legs are dogs?
* Excluding accidents and birth defects
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284554</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30285664</id>
	<title>Re:Why bother?</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1259693640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, javascript isn't too bad. Looking at the syntax for html/xhtml makes me want to vomit though. No sane programmer today would design a markup language that remotely resembles it. <br>Random example: (input type="checkbox" checked="checked"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/)<br> <br>Why in the fuck would you have a string? I assume it isn't a string deep down but that doesn't really help the code itself. Another example could be things having names, IDs, classes seems amazingly redundant. Then there is anything to do with tables. And formatting has tons of stupid quirks. Only way it dodges being the worst language ever is the fact that it isn't really a language.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , javascript is n't too bad .
Looking at the syntax for html/xhtml makes me want to vomit though .
No sane programmer today would design a markup language that remotely resembles it .
Random example : ( input type = " checkbox " checked = " checked " / ) Why in the fuck would you have a string ?
I assume it is n't a string deep down but that does n't really help the code itself .
Another example could be things having names , IDs , classes seems amazingly redundant .
Then there is anything to do with tables .
And formatting has tons of stupid quirks .
Only way it dodges being the worst language ever is the fact that it is n't really a language .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, javascript isn't too bad.
Looking at the syntax for html/xhtml makes me want to vomit though.
No sane programmer today would design a markup language that remotely resembles it.
Random example: (input type="checkbox" checked="checked" /) Why in the fuck would you have a string?
I assume it isn't a string deep down but that doesn't really help the code itself.
Another example could be things having names, IDs, classes seems amazingly redundant.
Then there is anything to do with tables.
And formatting has tons of stupid quirks.
Only way it dodges being the worst language ever is the fact that it isn't really a language.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284828</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30305778</id>
	<title>Mod parent up</title>
	<author>davegaramond</author>
	<datestamp>1259587680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I too hate variable scoping in Javascript, even PHP is slightly better in that variables are local inside functions. There are other small annoyances too. But the biggest is: Javascript has been given monopoly on the client side for too long. I wonder how much better can the Web be if there were more competition on the client-side browser language.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I too hate variable scoping in Javascript , even PHP is slightly better in that variables are local inside functions .
There are other small annoyances too .
But the biggest is : Javascript has been given monopoly on the client side for too long .
I wonder how much better can the Web be if there were more competition on the client-side browser language .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I too hate variable scoping in Javascript, even PHP is slightly better in that variables are local inside functions.
There are other small annoyances too.
But the biggest is: Javascript has been given monopoly on the client side for too long.
I wonder how much better can the Web be if there were more competition on the client-side browser language.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30286354</id>
	<title>Well, I used javascript for a game</title>
	<author>roguegramma</author>
	<datestamp>1259695980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, I used javascript for a puzzle game when there was no Ajax; I used an iframe for loading data instead of xmlhttprequest, and things were called dhtml for dynamic html. Game is still essentially working without modifications in modern browsers: <a href="http://hylzee.sourceforge.net/hylZee/" title="sourceforge.net" rel="nofollow">http://hylzee.sourceforge.net/hylZee/</a> [sourceforge.net]<br>(Preview; The full version is meant to be downloaded and hacked.)</p><p>On the other hand, somehow, in ff+addons the victory advancement to next level doesn't work and the loss message is hidden/misplaced.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , I used javascript for a puzzle game when there was no Ajax ; I used an iframe for loading data instead of xmlhttprequest , and things were called dhtml for dynamic html .
Game is still essentially working without modifications in modern browsers : http : //hylzee.sourceforge.net/hylZee/ [ sourceforge.net ] ( Preview ; The full version is meant to be downloaded and hacked .
) On the other hand , somehow , in ff + addons the victory advancement to next level does n't work and the loss message is hidden/misplaced .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, I used javascript for a puzzle game when there was no Ajax; I used an iframe for loading data instead of xmlhttprequest, and things were called dhtml for dynamic html.
Game is still essentially working without modifications in modern browsers: http://hylzee.sourceforge.net/hylZee/ [sourceforge.net](Preview; The full version is meant to be downloaded and hacked.
)On the other hand, somehow, in ff+addons the victory advancement to next level doesn't work and the loss message is hidden/misplaced.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30344948</id>
	<title>Re:Getting JS out of the browser is a *great* idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260130080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/obsolete.html#other-elements-attributes-and-apis" title="w3.org" rel="nofollow">willful violation of the javascript object model for document.all in HTML5</a> [w3.org] (see bottom of page) is one particularly nasty example of what the web has done/is doing to Javascript. If you know the JS object model well, think about what that violation really entails, and what it would take to write that special case into a JS engine, for one particular property, of one particular object, <em>if</em> you happen to be running in a particular environment (browser))</p></div><p>I wasn't aware of this proposal. That's just plain horrible, I wonder what they were thinking. Who in their right mind would create a new HTML 5 document and then use 'if (document.all)' in a script?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The willful violation of the javascript object model for document.all in HTML5 [ w3.org ] ( see bottom of page ) is one particularly nasty example of what the web has done/is doing to Javascript .
If you know the JS object model well , think about what that violation really entails , and what it would take to write that special case into a JS engine , for one particular property , of one particular object , if you happen to be running in a particular environment ( browser ) ) I was n't aware of this proposal .
That 's just plain horrible , I wonder what they were thinking .
Who in their right mind would create a new HTML 5 document and then use 'if ( document.all ) ' in a script ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The willful violation of the javascript object model for document.all in HTML5 [w3.org] (see bottom of page) is one particularly nasty example of what the web has done/is doing to Javascript.
If you know the JS object model well, think about what that violation really entails, and what it would take to write that special case into a JS engine, for one particular property, of one particular object, if you happen to be running in a particular environment (browser))I wasn't aware of this proposal.
That's just plain horrible, I wonder what they were thinking.
Who in their right mind would create a new HTML 5 document and then use 'if (document.all)' in a script?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284446</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30287066</id>
	<title>Re:Javascript is actually a great language</title>
	<author>jcaren</author>
	<datestamp>1259698320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Add:  assignment is "copy" for all types except Object where copy by reference is used.</p><p>This makes "deep copy" code a nightmare and even versions of deep copy code in toolkits such as jquery do not work in all cases.</p><p>I have been working on a jquery based app using a modified Jquery based SOAP::Lite client and have hit this problem a number of times.</p><p>Jacqui</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Add : assignment is " copy " for all types except Object where copy by reference is used.This makes " deep copy " code a nightmare and even versions of deep copy code in toolkits such as jquery do not work in all cases.I have been working on a jquery based app using a modified Jquery based SOAP : : Lite client and have hit this problem a number of times.Jacqui</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Add:  assignment is "copy" for all types except Object where copy by reference is used.This makes "deep copy" code a nightmare and even versions of deep copy code in toolkits such as jquery do not work in all cases.I have been working on a jquery based app using a modified Jquery based SOAP::Lite client and have hit this problem a number of times.Jacqui</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30286536</id>
	<title>Re:Javascript is actually a great language</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259696580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, I don't quite agree:<br>1. Sure, if you don't put var in front of the variable name, it will take the global variable, but isn't this what any language does? I mean, if I write a class in Java and use a variable without initialising it, it will use the parent's variable. It's quite normal behaviour, it's just that too many people don't use the var keyword.<br>2. Says who? Just look at the JQuery library. But here's an example of how simple it is:<br>a = {<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; b: function(){<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; alert(2);<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; }<br>};<br>b = function(){<br>alert(1);<br>};</p><p>b();<br>a.b();</p><p>Will alert 1, then 2. Showing that namespaces DO exist.</p><p>3. That's what closures are for:<br>function a() {<br>var b = 1;<br>(function(){<br>var b = 2;<br>})();<br>alert(b);<br>}<br>Will alert 1, therefore, blocks DO exist, if used correctly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , I do n't quite agree : 1 .
Sure , if you do n't put var in front of the variable name , it will take the global variable , but is n't this what any language does ?
I mean , if I write a class in Java and use a variable without initialising it , it will use the parent 's variable .
It 's quite normal behaviour , it 's just that too many people do n't use the var keyword.2 .
Says who ?
Just look at the JQuery library .
But here 's an example of how simple it is : a = {         b : function ( ) {                 alert ( 2 ) ;         } } ; b = function ( ) { alert ( 1 ) ; } ; b ( ) ; a.b ( ) ; Will alert 1 , then 2 .
Showing that namespaces DO exist.3 .
That 's what closures are for : function a ( ) { var b = 1 ; ( function ( ) { var b = 2 ; } ) ( ) ; alert ( b ) ; } Will alert 1 , therefore , blocks DO exist , if used correctly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, I don't quite agree:1.
Sure, if you don't put var in front of the variable name, it will take the global variable, but isn't this what any language does?
I mean, if I write a class in Java and use a variable without initialising it, it will use the parent's variable.
It's quite normal behaviour, it's just that too many people don't use the var keyword.2.
Says who?
Just look at the JQuery library.
But here's an example of how simple it is:a = {
        b: function(){
                alert(2);
        }};b = function(){alert(1);};b();a.b();Will alert 1, then 2.
Showing that namespaces DO exist.3.
That's what closures are for:function a() {var b = 1;(function(){var b = 2;})();alert(b);}Will alert 1, therefore, blocks DO exist, if used correctly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30285836</id>
	<title>JavaScript has real problems</title>
	<author>pydev</author>
	<datestamp>1259694120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Scripting languages are not interchangeable.  While JavaScript hackers may hate me for this and while JavaScript has some nice features, I think prototype-based OOP and JavaScript scoping have turned out to be bad ideas.  There are worse languages than JavaScript out there, but I won't be switching if I can help it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Scripting languages are not interchangeable .
While JavaScript hackers may hate me for this and while JavaScript has some nice features , I think prototype-based OOP and JavaScript scoping have turned out to be bad ideas .
There are worse languages than JavaScript out there , but I wo n't be switching if I can help it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Scripting languages are not interchangeable.
While JavaScript hackers may hate me for this and while JavaScript has some nice features, I think prototype-based OOP and JavaScript scoping have turned out to be bad ideas.
There are worse languages than JavaScript out there, but I won't be switching if I can help it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30289454</id>
	<title>Re:Can your language do this</title>
	<author>WarwickRyan</author>
	<datestamp>1259664660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What I love is the fact that Microsoft are taking many ideas from Javascript (and other dynamic/functional languages) and adding them to C#.  Last time saw lambdas (notably used in LINQ) and the new version has dynamic objects.</p><p>All languages have their strong points:</p><p>Java's universal, and has the most logical structure (the super is super, interfaces are implemented.<br>C# has delegates, and now a load of dynamic features.<br>Javascript has anon functions.<br>VB has the With.. End With block.<br>Ruby's extremely concise.<br>Python has list comprehension.<br>Perl has top rate string handling.<br>C/C++ can get as close to the metal as any sane person'd ever need to be.<br>PHP has... erm..... hmm... it's... shit... but it does have character.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What I love is the fact that Microsoft are taking many ideas from Javascript ( and other dynamic/functional languages ) and adding them to C # .
Last time saw lambdas ( notably used in LINQ ) and the new version has dynamic objects.All languages have their strong points : Java 's universal , and has the most logical structure ( the super is super , interfaces are implemented.C # has delegates , and now a load of dynamic features.Javascript has anon functions.VB has the With.. End With block.Ruby 's extremely concise.Python has list comprehension.Perl has top rate string handling.C/C + + can get as close to the metal as any sane person 'd ever need to be.PHP has... erm..... hmm... it 's... shit... but it does have character .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I love is the fact that Microsoft are taking many ideas from Javascript (and other dynamic/functional languages) and adding them to C#.
Last time saw lambdas (notably used in LINQ) and the new version has dynamic objects.All languages have their strong points:Java's universal, and has the most logical structure (the super is super, interfaces are implemented.C# has delegates, and now a load of dynamic features.Javascript has anon functions.VB has the With.. End With block.Ruby's extremely concise.Python has list comprehension.Perl has top rate string handling.C/C++ can get as close to the metal as any sane person'd ever need to be.PHP has... erm..... hmm... it's... shit... but it does have character.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284612</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30296074</id>
	<title>Re:Javascript is actually a great language</title>
	<author>lcs</author>
	<datestamp>1259588640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's not really fair, it all depends on the runtime. Server-side JavaScript is not the same as client-side JavaScript.

</p><p>Take a project like <a href="http://esxx.org/" title="esxx.org" rel="nofollow">ESXX</a> [esxx.org] as an example. It's using Mozilla Rhino, which means that
</p><ul>
<li>The JS code is compiled into bytecode and then JIT'ed by the JVM.</li>
<li>It has an awesome runtime environment (Java), including UI, 2D and 3D graphics.</li>
<li>It's definitely multithreaded, either directly via Java's Thread objects or ESXX's fork/join and parallel array primitives.</li>
</ul><p>

When you add E4X (the ECMAscript XML extension that means you can get a list of all  links in an XHTML document by referring to <i>mydoc..a.@href</i>) to the mix, the end result is pretty damn nice for rapid web development.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's not really fair , it all depends on the runtime .
Server-side JavaScript is not the same as client-side JavaScript .
Take a project like ESXX [ esxx.org ] as an example .
It 's using Mozilla Rhino , which means that The JS code is compiled into bytecode and then JIT'ed by the JVM .
It has an awesome runtime environment ( Java ) , including UI , 2D and 3D graphics .
It 's definitely multithreaded , either directly via Java 's Thread objects or ESXX 's fork/join and parallel array primitives .
When you add E4X ( the ECMAscript XML extension that means you can get a list of all links in an XHTML document by referring to mydoc..a .
@ href ) to the mix , the end result is pretty damn nice for rapid web development .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's not really fair, it all depends on the runtime.
Server-side JavaScript is not the same as client-side JavaScript.
Take a project like ESXX [esxx.org] as an example.
It's using Mozilla Rhino, which means that

The JS code is compiled into bytecode and then JIT'ed by the JVM.
It has an awesome runtime environment (Java), including UI, 2D and 3D graphics.
It's definitely multithreaded, either directly via Java's Thread objects or ESXX's fork/join and parallel array primitives.
When you add E4X (the ECMAscript XML extension that means you can get a list of all  links in an XHTML document by referring to mydoc..a.
@href) to the mix, the end result is pretty damn nice for rapid web development.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284452</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30316742</id>
	<title>Re:c++ is good</title>
	<author>kaffiene</author>
	<datestamp>1259836620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It clashes with "the right tool for the job".  A professional would use the right tools, but if you have the wrong tools you can't point out their inappropriateness?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It clashes with " the right tool for the job " .
A professional would use the right tools , but if you have the wrong tools you ca n't point out their inappropriateness ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It clashes with "the right tool for the job".
A professional would use the right tools, but if you have the wrong tools you can't point out their inappropriateness?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30285584</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30286706</id>
	<title>Re:Javascript is actually a great language</title>
	<author>Carewolf</author>
	<datestamp>1259697180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Lack of block scope (despite the fact the language has blocks).</p></div></blockquote><p>If you want a scope for your block, then create a scope for your block. In most situationens you will have already have one, but if you suddenly feel the need for a pointless block with its own scope, that is possible as well:<br><tt><br>function a() {<br>
&nbsp; var b = 1;<br>
&nbsp; function() {<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; var b = 2;<br>
&nbsp; }();<br>
&nbsp; alert(b);<br>}<br></tt><br>Will alert 1.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Lack of block scope ( despite the fact the language has blocks ) .If you want a scope for your block , then create a scope for your block .
In most situationens you will have already have one , but if you suddenly feel the need for a pointless block with its own scope , that is possible as well : function a ( ) {   var b = 1 ;   function ( ) {       var b = 2 ;   } ( ) ;   alert ( b ) ; } Will alert 1 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lack of block scope (despite the fact the language has blocks).If you want a scope for your block, then create a scope for your block.
In most situationens you will have already have one, but if you suddenly feel the need for a pointless block with its own scope, that is possible as well:function a() {
  var b = 1;
  function() {
      var b = 2;
  }();
  alert(b);}Will alert 1.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284558</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1548221_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284954
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1548221_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30286598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30289132
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1548221_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284446
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30287470
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1548221_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284314
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30285114
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30286084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30289456
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1548221_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284784
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1548221_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284314
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30285506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30286698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30287962
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1548221_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284314
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30286312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1548221_107</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30289228
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1548221_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30285988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30291150
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30305196
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1548221_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30287372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1548221_110</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30285764
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1548221_101</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284314
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30290512
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1548221_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284314
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30285664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30286076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1548221_100</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30287138
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1548221_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284872
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30305064
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1548221_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30287144
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1548221_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284446
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30344948
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1548221_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30285726
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1548221_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284314
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30285114
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30292716
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1548221_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30287392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1548221_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30289094
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1548221_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284314
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30285056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30286308
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1548221_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30290640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1548221_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30290408
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1548221_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30288606
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1548221_99</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284466
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1548221_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30293758
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1548221_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30285994
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1548221_98</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30287388
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1548221_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30295486
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1548221_113</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30287632
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1548221_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284314
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30285160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30290554
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1548221_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284314
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30285810
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1548221_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1548221_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30287066
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1548221_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284676
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30316462
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1548221_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30286070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1548221_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30286536
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1548221_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30286420
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1548221_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30285302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30294680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1548221_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284314
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30286840
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1548221_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284446
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284902
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1548221_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30305778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1548221_97</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284314
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30285664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30286064
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1548221_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30316574
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1548221_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284314
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30285992
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1548221_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284314
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30285160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30286436
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1548221_106</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30288402
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1548221_108</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284880
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1548221_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30293978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1548221_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30285964
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1548221_111</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30287080
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1548221_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30296074
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1548221_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30296976
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1548221_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30286598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30290150
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1548221_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284518
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1548221_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30287202
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1548221_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284314
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30285114
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30291660
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1548221_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284314
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30285104
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1548221_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30286608
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1548221_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284314
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30285762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30293128
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1548221_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284446
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30295510
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1548221_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30287466
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1548221_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30294436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30319732
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1548221_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30286706
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1548221_103</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30287502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1548221_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284314
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30285316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30292832
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1548221_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284460
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1548221_105</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30285988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30292576
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1548221_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284314
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30285068
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1548221_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30287850
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1548221_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284314
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30285506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30286698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30288004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30289222
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1548221_104</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284314
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30288480
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1548221_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284446
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30316284
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1548221_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284314
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30285676
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1548221_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30290176
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1548221_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284446
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30286338
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1548221_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30294240
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1548221_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30286616
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1548221_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284676
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30295620
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1548221_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30286934
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1548221_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30289454
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1548221_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30294344
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1548221_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284314
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30285744
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1548221_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284314
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30285506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30286698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30288066
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1548221_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30288400
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1548221_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30286458
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1548221_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284984
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30336698
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1548221_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30290226
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1548221_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30286370
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1548221_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284788
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1548221_96</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30285692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1548221_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30288868
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1548221_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30318128
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1548221_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30287454
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1548221_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284314
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30287034
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1548221_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30285988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30300544
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1548221_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30316430
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1548221_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30286304
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1548221_109</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30285480
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1548221_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284314
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30287534
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1548221_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30286212
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1548221_112</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30290568
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1548221_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30286028
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1548221_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284314
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30286078
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1548221_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284314
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30285506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30291940
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1548221_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284314
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30285602
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1548221_102</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30285584
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30316742
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1548221_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30287292
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1548221_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30295068
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1548221_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284984
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30316608
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1548221_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284446
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30285214
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30290268
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1548221_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30286316
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1548221_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284314
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30287170
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_01_1548221.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284318
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284518
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284476
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30287454
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30286212
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284482
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30285480
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30286028
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30287080
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30287502
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284558
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30287372
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30287292
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30286420
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30305778
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30293978
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30286616
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30285964
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30286370
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30294240
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30287144
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30287066
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30286706
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30286536
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30288402
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284542
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30285302
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30294680
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30285726
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284466
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284460
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284414
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284452
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30296074
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30285988
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30292576
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30300544
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30291150
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30305196
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30295068
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284880
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284872
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30305064
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30288868
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30290640
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284954
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30287388
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30286458
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30285692
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30285764
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284690
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30318128
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30289228
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30294344
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30295486
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30288606
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30287632
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30286608
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_01_1548221.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284676
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30295620
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30316462
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_01_1548221.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284488
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30287466
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30290176
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30289094
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30287138
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284788
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30290408
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30294436
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30319732
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30296976
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30290226
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30286304
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30286316
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_01_1548221.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30285670
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_01_1548221.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284440
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_01_1548221.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30285586
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_01_1548221.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284614
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30288400
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_01_1548221.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284314
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30285992
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30285104
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30290512
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30285810
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284828
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30285056
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30286308
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30285762
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30293128
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30285160
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30290554
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30286436
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30286078
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30285114
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30286084
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30289456
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30292716
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30291660
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30285316
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30292832
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30285664
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30286064
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30286076
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30285744
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284702
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30286312
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30288480
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30285506
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30286698
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30288004
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30289222
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30287962
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30288066
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30291940
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30285602
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30287034
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30287534
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30285068
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30287170
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30285676
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30286840
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_01_1548221.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284260
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284554
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30285584
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30316742
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30287202
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_01_1548221.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284462
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30285994
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284784
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_01_1548221.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284470
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_01_1548221.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284446
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284710
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30286338
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30295510
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284902
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30285214
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30290268
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30287470
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30344948
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30316284
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_01_1548221.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284348
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_01_1548221.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30286598
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30289132
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30290150
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_01_1548221.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284984
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30316608
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30336698
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_01_1548221.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284612
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30289454
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30316430
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30286070
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30290568
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30293758
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30287392
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_01_1548221.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284590
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30286934
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_01_1548221.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284672
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30287850
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_01_1548221.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30284792
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1548221.30316574
</commentlist>
</conversation>
