Bright prospects for web technologies

I'm not sure where to start. Yuhů simply went too far. I
 can't otherwise explain his post Bleak

prospects for web technologies. I can partly agree that web technologies don't offer the best

tools for building web applications, but I wouldn't dream of relying on Jindřich Recina's “brilliant contributions” to the

discussion under
 the article Building a web layout — a theoretical introduction as my

evidence.

Let me pull out a few of the “brilliant contributions” from the discussion below the article and comment on them.

I totally agree that we're spectators waiting for whatever “the people upstairs” give us. Unfortunately they don't give us anything

usable! And it's going to get worse! I downloaded Microsoft's LongHorn, the new OS, and installed it. Folks, they're STILL rolling that ball along.

So expect their standards within two years. They WON'T support the W3C LEVEL2 event model, because it ISN'T THERE!!!!

They use their own methods, and they've even changed some of those! The sad thing is that no other company is doing anything about it! Not IBM,

not SUN.

Without picking the whole thing apart, I'd just say it's premature to pass judgment. The release of the

new Windows version codenamed Longhorn is planned for 2006, so
 it seems odd to judge its features at the start of 2004, especially given, as I hardly need to add, 
 the publicly stated separation of the system kernel and the web browser.

I'm also a little puzzled about how Longhorn is being distributed. Otherwise I can't explain the line “I downloaded

Microsoft's LongHorn.” I'm not aware that Microsoft has released anything, presumably some alpha version, of the operating

system billed as its future flagship.

The only point I'd agree with is that neither IBM nor Sun is doing anything about it. It's none of their business anyway. Each

software company is free to decide whether its products will follow standards. It's their own neck
on the line.

How come I can play Hidden and Dangerous on my computer, running just fine on a 1.8 GHz P4 with full

detail, a well-developed story, graphics and so on, yet if I display an (X)HTML page with CSS or Flash my

CPU hits 100% and I can't even move the cursor? Could it be because the browser is an ActiveX component that processes

the scripting language, JS, as well as XHTML tags and CSS? Flash is worse still. Its plug-in is ActiveX too.

So we have ACTIVEX inside ACTIVEX? Isn't that a bit schizo?

I really don't know why the esteemed writer can't move his cursor, but the first question strikes me as nonsense. The browser,

assuming the author meant Internet Explorer, can be used as an ActiveX component, but that has

very little to do with ordinary use of the browser itself.

Why can't I write “some” source code for the browser that runs fast? I'll tell you… I studied compilers and

languages, so I know the answer. It's because the browser is built like crap!!!! Worse, it only bothers me and a few people

who understand it. The rest don't want to notice… It's just the stupid web, right?

I've written some code in ECMAScript, for example. I've also made HTML and XHTML documents and built applications in XUL, styled
 with CSS, and they didn't strike me as slow to process. I didn't study compilers, but I have a general grasp

of state machines, lexical analysis and grammars. I wouldn't lump interpreted languages like

JavaScript and JScript in with markup languages, and I certainly wouldn't say a browser is

built like crap when I can't see inside it.

Web standards, which I take to be the main issue here, are a concern for more than just the author of those lines

and a handful of others. They matter to everyone who works on the web day in and day out. Standards, complying with them and

using or implementing them, are a long-term effort, and we should always bear that in mind.

And it will get worse if we build our visions on seriously distorted information.

11 March 2004 — Thank you to Mr. Recina for the very fair debate under this post, where he sets his claims straight or, more accurately, puts them in the context of a technical discussion.

Related articles

• (Dagblog 02.01.2004) Internet browsers and
• the future