×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Move Over AJAX, Make Room for ARAX

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 5 years ago | from the not-a-typo dept.

409

sasserstyl writes "eWeek reports that Microsoft's Silverlight platform will support Ruby client-side scripting, enabling ARAX — or Asynchronous Ruby and XML. Would be cool to have the option to script client-side in something other than Javascript. 'In essence, using ARAX, Ruby developers would not have to go through the machinations of using something like the RJS (Ruby JavaScript) utility, where they write Ruby code and RJS generates JavaScript code to run on the client, Lam said. "Sure, you could do it that way, but then at some point you might have to add some JavaScript code that adds some custom functionality on the client yourself," he said. "So there's always that sense of, 'Now I'm in another world. And wouldn't it be nice if I have this utility class I wrote in Ruby...' Today if I want to use it in the browser I have to port it to JavaScript. Now I can just run it in the browser."'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

409 comments

Um, my browser doesn't support Ruby (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23684615)

Does yours?

Re:Um, my browser doesn't support Ruby (4, Funny)

Reverend528 (585549) | more than 5 years ago | (#23684643)

Last week they embraced ruby. Now they are extending it. I can't wait to see what they'll do next!

Re:Um, my browser doesn't support Ruby (5, Interesting)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 5 years ago | (#23684677)

If they extinguished it, who would notice? Seriously -- I'm not trying to troll. WTF is Ruby and what is so great about it? It just seems like Java for people who hate Java from what little research I've done on it, but it also seems to be very popular (of course, hating Java is popular, too).

Can someone please tell me?

Re:Um, my browser doesn't support Ruby (5, Informative)

hansamurai (907719) | more than 5 years ago | (#23684809)

It's a scripting language that was under the radar until Ruby on Rails came around. Rails is a well done framework for Ruby that opened up the language to the masses.

And because you brought up Java too, there's also JRuby, a Java implementation of Ruby.

Re:Um, my browser doesn't support Ruby (2, Interesting)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 5 years ago | (#23685301)

Rails is a well done framework for Ruby that opened up the language to the masses.

Am I the only one who sees something bad about that?

Does a plumber do electrical work? No? Then why does anyone but a programmer do programming in a professional environment?

It must be this nasty cold I've contracted, I can't seem to understand anything today.

Re:Um, my browser doesn't support Ruby (2, Interesting)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | more than 5 years ago | (#23684885)

It's like java, but not as fast, secure, or scalable.

It's syntax is "intuitive" which would mean good things if you were someone off the street, but for the rest of us who've spent decades working with languages that are basically C syntax, it's a p.i.t.a, and the syntax doesn't really add anything.

Rails is a cool new idea, but the implementation is horrorshow; Django got a later start and is already ahead in performance.

Re:Um, my browser doesn't support Ruby (5, Interesting)

nuttycom (1016165) | more than 5 years ago | (#23685051)

Its syntax isn't like C? Cry me a river. Sure, the syntax could have been made more c-like (braces instead of do/end - and you can use braces if you like anyway) but the syntax isn't where you get the benefit of ruby.

The most important thing that Ruby has done, in my mind, is to make blocks, closures, and runtime metaprogramming mainstream. So while the syntax may not add much, the language features add a hell of a lot. After writing code in C and Java for a number of years, switching over to Ruby took me all of a week.

That being said, the supposed productivity gains are mostly hype, because you end up spending the time you gained in writing the code to begin with having to write a lot more integration tests to ensure correctness for things that the compiler deals with in a typesafe language.

Rails has been pretty important insofar as it's given a kick in the ass to a bunch of other languages. I agree though that the implementation is a bit of a nightmare, and the lack of built-in dependency injection is a hassle.

Re:Um, my browser doesn't support Ruby (2, Interesting)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | more than 5 years ago | (#23685161)

Rails isn't cool. It's a poor concept from the word go. They make the thing so damned weighty in their blind adherence to the flawed premise that just because MVC is a good model for desktop applications, it's a good model for everything, and that single premise is an insurmountable barrier to good performance.

Fact of the matter is, MVC is a piss poor model for stateless client-server applications, but it's not till you've wasted your time building a solution in this fashion and watching it fail to scale that you realize that.

Re:Um, my browser doesn't support Ruby (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23685231)

A small correction for you -- It's not like Java; it's like Smalltalk. Its performance does tend to stink; I'm not sure about security aspects. Granted, you can't run it in a classloader jail, but who does that with their Java except for lame web applets?

Personally I've really enjoyed working with Ruby, but I've never used it for the web...

Re:Um, my browser doesn't support Ruby (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23685237)

Rails. Is. Not. About. Being. Fast. Secure. And. Scalable. It's about pretty and maintainable code, and being the shortest route from idea to finished webapp. Rails is widely considered as the best framework in the world for doing just that.

Re:Um, my browser doesn't support Ruby (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23685347)

Just a little nitpick, Django was originally written as a closed source application for the Lawrence Journal-World before Rails was created, however, it was only open sourced after Rails.

Re:Um, my browser doesn't support Ruby (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#23685361)

Django's templating engine is a bit too baroque for me, though. Of course, I don't like anyone else's templating engine either, so the fact that Django works with other templating engines really doesn't help me much.

Maybe I should just write my own.

Re:Um, my browser doesn't support Ruby (4, Insightful)

catmistake (814204) | more than 5 years ago | (#23684903)

Agreed.
Ajax (Asynchronous Javascript and XMLhttpRequest) was given a name because it was a growing trend; many decided to use it independently, and naming it something made sense. ARAX, or whatever, is just an idea a few people have. I see no trend.

Re:Um, my browser doesn't support Ruby (5, Insightful)

happyemoticon (543015) | more than 5 years ago | (#23684955)

It's more similar to Python in my mind. It's a post-Perl interpreted language that attempts to have better object-orientation while not being overly restrictive. It inherits a lot more from Perl than Python does, so you can accomplish most tasks in a variety of ways. Neither is anywhere near as rigid as Java - you don't have to catch or throw every exception, you don't have to make ten subclasses and an interface to write Hello World, etc.

I get into these kinds of discussions with my boss all the time. He looks at Java as the ultimate golden hammer, and I tend to use a variety of languages. There are a bunch of little syntactic things I love about Ruby, but in the end it's mostly a question of style, politics and library support.

Re:Um, my browser doesn't support Ruby (2, Funny)

moderatorrater (1095745) | more than 5 years ago | (#23685189)

but in the end it's mostly a question of style, politics and library support.
Yeah, I see Obama as a Ruby man myself, whereas McCain is a C or C++ man. Ruby's cool, trendy, and somewhat revolutionary, but it's unproven and may have problems scaling beyond small to medium sized bases. The ideas all seem to be right, but nobody knows if they'll work in the real world.

C and C++, on the other hand, have been around forever, they're old and stodgy, yet you know where they stand and how things are going to work out. You're not going to get anything revolutionary out of them, and you're not going to be able to get a story on Slashdot and other news sites about this awesome new thing that you couldn't do the same way in another language.

Re:Um, my browser doesn't support Ruby (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23685021)

think redo of smalltalk by perl hacker that wanted it to be as beautiful as python.

aoeu

Re:Um, my browser doesn't support Ruby (1)

Doctor Faustus (127273) | more than 5 years ago | (#23685053)

It just seems like Java for people who hate Java from what little research I've done on it, but it also seems to be very popular (of course, hating Java is popular, too).
More like Perl for people who hate Perl. It has most of the same strengths, but isn't remotely so hideous.

Re:Um, my browser doesn't support Ruby (5, Insightful)

an.echte.trilingue (1063180) | more than 5 years ago | (#23685147)

Microsoft knows that web applications will soon threaten their client-side sales model. They also know that places like Google have enough of a head start in the AJAX world that they will never catch up (tried google apps lately? It is really getting there, especially if you do a lot of collaborative work). This is why IE's javascript standards compliancy still sucks balls even though its CSS support isn't bad: they want to make life hard for people trying to develop in AJAX.

Now they are trying to develop proprietary technologies to compete: Silverlight and this new ARAX bull will replace Flash and AJAX. They will release some shit-hot developer tools that make it really easy to build shiny websites on the Silverlight/ARAX stack so that before long half the web is written in it. Then, ARAX and Silverlight will get proprietary extensions (new functionality! woot!) and break on non-IE browsers (got to assure that OS monopoly). They will also add some undocumented APIs so that the (subscription-based) Microsoft Apps runs faster than anything anybody else comes ups with, and boom!

Profit.

Re:Um, my browser doesn't support Ruby (5, Insightful)

stoolpigeon (454276) | more than 5 years ago | (#23684645)

Not only that - my platform doesn't support silverlight.

Re:Um, my browser doesn't support Ruby (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23685289)

Not only that - my platform doesn't support silverlight.
May I ask what your platform is?

Re:Um, my browser doesn't support Ruby (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 5 years ago | (#23684967)

There are at least two Ruby-on-JavaScript (HotRuby, IronMonkey) projects I know of, the former of which has a working, limited Ruby 1.9 bytecode interpreter running on JS.

So, if your browser supports JavaScript...

Re:Um, my browser doesn't support Ruby (1)

WED Fan (911325) | more than 5 years ago | (#23685135)

Did you try to read even the summary? Don't worry about RTFA, try reading the summary before trying to get that first post.

Re:Um, my browser doesn't support Ruby (3, Informative)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 5 years ago | (#23685341)

Does yours?
Who cares about that. It runs in Silverlight. It's whether your browser supports the Silverlight plugin that matters. IE does, Firefox on Windows (2, not yet 3) does, Opera does inofficially (to be official in the future), Safari on OS X does. Firefox on Linux is WIP and a Mono project.

Re:Um, my browser doesn't support Ruby (3, Funny)

mythras (997054) | more than 5 years ago | (#23685355)

Does this mean my new ARAX sites will be as reliable as Twitter? If so, I'm gonna need to extend the minutes on my on-call cellphone plan.

Move over ARAX (1)

Icegryphon (715550) | more than 5 years ago | (#23684621)

It is AFRAX!

Re:Move over ARAX (4, Funny)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | more than 5 years ago | (#23684695)

Hey Balmer!

I've put together a language and framework.

I call them Diamond and Diamond-On-Wings.

They're not very good... rather cumbersome and don't scale very well, but they give you something flashy with only 3 lines of code, and I've got a ton of amateur developers who haven't learned well enough not to use it yet on board.

Can I have a blowjob too?

Come on... Developers, Developers, Developers!!! and all that jazz...

On your knees, fat man!

Re:Move over ARAX (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23685033)

That wasn't even funny. go back to living with your parents and World of Warcraft loser

Somebody update NoScript. (1, Insightful)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | more than 5 years ago | (#23684641)

Huh. I guess javascript was too fast, to secure, and too well understood for Microsoft's new toy. Or maybe Active X's massive exploitable bugs have been brought under control?

I'm seriously having trouble seeing a use for this. If I can't do it in Javascript, why wouldn't I do it in Java or C#? Instead of throwing another interpreted language on the browser, I'd much rather load an applet created with a static/strongly typed language. Sure, there are all kinds of security issues, but at least they're existing, understood issues. With weakly typed Ruby, you have injection issues coupled with the features that javascript rightly cut out for security reasons.

Obviously it's a big deal for Ruby, but I can't help but think that it's a boneheaded move for Microsoft. They've spent all this time pushing .Net and then they decide they're going to hitch their new flashy webthingy to Ruby...

Re:Somebody update NoScript. (3, Insightful)

moderatorrater (1095745) | more than 5 years ago | (#23684693)

Not only that, but they're not adding a language that's significantly different. They're not adding Java (which Google might appreciate) or C/C++, they're adding Ruby, which is a language very similar to javascript (certainly more similar than JS or Ruby are to Java and their ilk). Port a language with better scalability and modularity, not more of the same.

Re:Somebody update NoScript. (2, Insightful)

x_MeRLiN_x (935994) | more than 5 years ago | (#23684907)

Why exactly would they be adding (managed) C++ support when they have already done so?

I can see 75% of Slashdot talking out of their ass on this one.

Re:Somebody update NoScript. (1)

pizza_milkshake (580452) | more than 5 years ago | (#23685017)

Port a language with better scalability and modularity, not more of the same.
But that's exactly the point, exactly the point. The wins for Microsoft are two-fold: keep developers busy with yet another language AND increase the need for beefier microprocessors by using a language whose implementation is known to be abysmally slow[1] (Intel likes this)
  1. The Great Computer Language Shootout [debian.org]

Scalability? (2, Insightful)

weston (16146) | more than 5 years ago | (#23685115)

Port a language with better scalability

Ah, yes. Scalability in a client-side scripting environment. For the times when a browser has to be able to handle requests from thousands of users at once!

Re:Somebody update NoScript. (1)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | more than 5 years ago | (#23685233)

I could definitely see Python, with its ability to incorporate C libraries, bridging that sort of gap. Still, even there, you've got a solution without a problem...It'd be easy to remove some of the roadblocks between user and data, but when you do that, you're compromising security.

Re:Somebody update NoScript. (2, Interesting)

Blnky (35330) | more than 5 years ago | (#23685365)

Not only that, but they're not adding a language that's significantly different. They're not adding Java (which Google might appreciate) or C/C++, they're adding Ruby, which is a language very similar to javascript (certainly more similar than JS or Ruby are to Java and their ilk). Port a language with better scalability and modularity, not more of the same.
Unlike Javascript, C++, Java, and Ruby all support encapsulation, built in inheritance, and explicit class declaration. Unlike Javascript, Java and Ruby are strongly typed. Even though Ruby supports duck typing, it still uses the explicate conversion similar to what is required in Java whereas Javascript uses implicit conversion. The closure in Ruby is one of its major strengths. Javascript can at most use anonymous functions. Having extensively used all of the languages you mention, Javascript really appears to be the outlier to me. Would you please explain why you think that Ruby is more like Javascript than Java or C++? Additionally, what well known scripting languages are you referring to when you request more scalability and modularity? Or are you assuming that a compiled or non well known language would be better?

Re:Somebody update NoScript. (2, Interesting)

hostyle (773991) | more than 5 years ago | (#23684803)

Note that Ruby scripting is being integrated into Silverlight - which is similar to Flash - not Internet Explorer. While it offers more than Flash does (you can write full applications ala XUL with Silverlight) it also does similar embedded rich apps ala Flash, but its not a browser (yet).

Re:Somebody update NoScript. (5, Interesting)

Simon (S2) (600188) | more than 5 years ago | (#23684827)

Weak security because of dynamic typing? You really have to elaborate on this, because like this it just makes no sense. How is a strong typed languare more secure than a dynamic typed one?

Re:Somebody update NoScript. (5, Informative)

bob.appleyard (1030756) | more than 5 years ago | (#23685081)

Strong and weak are often confused with dynamic and static. They're orthogonal concepts.

An example of a weakly statically typed language would be C. You have to declare the all the types, so you know what type you're dealing with compile time, but a boolean can be treated like an integer or a pointer. An example of a strongly dynamically typed language would be Lisp. You don't have type declarations (well in Common Lisp they're optional), and you don't know the type of a variable at compile time, but a list cannot be treated like a number.

You do get dynamically weakly typed languages, like PHP. You also get statically strongly typed languages, like Haskell. Assuming that strong and static are the same thing, or that weak and dynamic is the same thing, is a big mistake.

Re:Somebody update NoScript. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23685327)

The security issue comes down to exploits. When your dealing with user inputted values, if you think its a number and treat it like a number, but the user enters something that isn't a number it could be designed to overflow or an SQL injection. User inputted data should be strongly typed so that it rejects any data that is not of that type.

Uh... (1, Informative)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | more than 5 years ago | (#23685083)

A strongly typed language is much less vulnerable to injection/overflow issues because it won't try and play with anything that doesn't match its strict criteria. A weakly typed language, when presented with something that doesn't "fit" will try various methods to make it fit, and this has serious security implications.

Ruby is weakly typed, and dynamically typed, which means, as a programmer, you have a huge amount of freedom in what you can feed into a variable. It also means that you can effectively give it any input maliciously, and it will try and do something with it instead of rejecting it.

Java is the opposite. It will not accept data that does not match the variable declaration, and it will not allow variables of different types to interact without an explicit cast.

Re:Somebody update NoScript. (4, Interesting)

Lobster Quadrille (965591) | more than 5 years ago | (#23685111)

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Type+conversion+error%22+attack

Dynamic type conversions are a pretty common way to exploit SQL injection holes and circumvent input validation.

Re:Somebody update NoScript. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23685159)

Because, for instance, the Java type system will not allow you to replace the String implementation with a custom one, whereas in duck-typed languages, the string can be completely replaced and used to capture sensitive information.

One argument... (1)

weston (16146) | more than 5 years ago | (#23685235)

I love that you can assign functions like any other variable, and graft methods onto existing objects (overwriting things in some cases), but it definitely presents a problem in any sort of environment where you're not the only person who can insert code. See some of the problems the Greasemonkey folks had to worry about.

These problems aren't insurmountable, but I don't think you'd see them in C++ or Java.

look more closely at TFA... (4, Informative)

Fallen Andy (795676) | more than 5 years ago | (#23684893)

It's IronRuby in other words Ruby compiled to MSIL. So in principle it should inherit all the (in)security of that environment (winks).

Really this isn't a suprise as SilverLight was supposed to be the first outing of the Dynamic CLR (support for IronPython, IronRuby etc.). MS has been quite enthusiastic about dynamic languages ever since Jim Hugenin (former JPython author) started working for them.

Andy

Re:Somebody update NoScript. (1)

BillGod (639198) | more than 5 years ago | (#23685035)

ARAX? Is that the Chinese version of AJAX?

Re:Somebody update NoScript. (1)

Reality Master 201 (578873) | more than 5 years ago | (#23685105)

No, that would be ALAX.

The problem that many Chinese speakers have is in distinguishing between phonemes [l] and [r] in English. That's because their own language doesn't contain such a phonemic distinction between those two liquid consonants, despite the fact that they might well produce sounds which sound more or less the same as those in English.

Fascinating, no?

Look at ol' MS (3, Interesting)

flanksteak (69032) | more than 5 years ago | (#23684651)

Doing a little something for developer mindshare. But then this is really just a way to push .NET.

Questions:

  1. Anybody see Firefox adding support for other scripting languages as a result of this?
  2. Does this bode well for things like Moonlight and Mono?

Re:Look at ol' MS (3, Informative)

Bryansix (761547) | more than 5 years ago | (#23684701)

But AJAX works great in .NET already and it does everything you want it to do and you don't need to know javascript to make it work. All you need to do is set the right attributes in the controls you call and presto you have AJAX. The server takes care of generating all the javascript for it to work. Why they would move to this is totally beyond me besides malicious intentions.

Re:Look at ol' MS (2, Interesting)

flanksteak (69032) | more than 5 years ago | (#23684905)

What's malicious about it? They're not going to be able to kill Ruby by adding it to Silverlight.

I have no doubt that AJAX works just fine in .NET, but nothing gets developers more excited than a surplus of options. Even if the options don't add anything other than choice.

It will be interesting to see how much traction IronPython and IronRuby are able to get with non-MS devs. I have no experience with Ruby and only a little with .Net and Python, but I keep hearing about these integrations in places I least expect.

Re:Look at ol' MS (2, Interesting)

orasio (188021) | more than 5 years ago | (#23685171)

But AJAX works great in .NET already and it does everything you want it to do and you don't need to know javascript to make it work.
I code .NET for a living, and that is just not true.

Ajaxcontroltoolkit is nice, but far from complete.
Lots of things I have to do with JScript/JavaScript
There are other frameworks that help with Ajax, but at the end of the day, you need to work with JS.

Re:Look at ol' MS (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 5 years ago | (#23685373)

Anybody see Firefox adding support for other scripting languages as a result of this?


Mozilla is already working with Adobe on a project called "Tamarin" which is an bytecode compiled Javascript engine that will be used in Mozilla products and Adobe products, one side project of which ("IronMonkey") is aimed at providing Ruby and Python (and maybe PHP) support, apparently through simply taking IronRuby and IronPython (and maybe IronPHP) and doing a mapping from the CIL to Tamarin's bytecode. So I don't see Mozilla adding more scripting language support in response to Microsoft's recent announcements, since Mozilla's already working on that support.

There are also another Ruby on JavaScript project (HotRuby) that has produced a working (but somewhat limited, so far) Ruby 1.9 bytecode interpreter that runs on JavaScript. So support for additional scripting languages in browsers seems to be coming from multiple different directions.

arrrough? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23684667)

ronly roosers rode in arax raggy, re re re re re re re

learn..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23684679)

Or they could learn javascript.... it really isn't that complex, JS2 is a mess, but Crockford is right and JS is decent enough.

So what makes ruby developers so special (0, Troll)

ncttrnl (773936) | more than 5 years ago | (#23684707)

that they can't use more than one language like the rest of us?

Do we really need this? (2, Insightful)

_bug_ (112702) | more than 5 years ago | (#23684713)

Silverlight is going to allow .NET code, not just Ruby. Do we really need this? Do we really need to introduce multiple client-side languages like this? We're just creating more avenues to exploit clients. Adobe has had years to get Flash right and we're still finding exploits that can be used to install malware in the background.

Couple that with injection attacks being discovered on popular web sites and the growing use of Deep Packet Inspection and, honestly, we might as well just allow everyone in the world root access to all of our machines.

This is not a step forwards, it's a major step backwards. We can't be blinded by the prospect of client-side Ruby. We have to look past that and see that there are some very real security risks involved. It's less a cause for celebration and more a cause for caution towards installing Silverlight (or Flash, or any other type of embedded object that allows for client scripting).

Re:Do we really need this? (1)

Dan667 (564390) | more than 5 years ago | (#23684889)

Client side languages always blow. You cannot possibly cover every type of OS and browser so you are always going to have a half-assed solution.

Re:Do we really need this? (1)

The End Of Days (1243248) | more than 5 years ago | (#23685209)

First off, what the hell is a client side language?

Second, the languages themselves are fine. Your complaint seems more to be about APIs. Even this isn't really much of a problem in most well defined platforms, although there are always corner cases. Since the alternative is a separate source tree for each environment, I'd say I'm pretty happy with the current state of things, as well as the direction they're heading.

Re:Do we really need this? (1)

moderatorrater (1095745) | more than 5 years ago | (#23684931)

You're right, we should make our computers secure and unplug everyone from the internet!

But seriously, the security holes won't come from the ruby language itself, but from the silverlight platform. Build silverlight securely and the rest will follow. Build the OS securely, and the rest will follow. That's the point: layer security, then when you put a new layer on you don't have to worry so much about whether or not that layer is going to have a few holes.

What we don't want to do is stifle new developments because of unfounded fears of security holes. If you don't want this insecure platform on your desktop, that's fine. For me, I'll run it as another user in a sandboxed instance so that it won't fuck up my machine badly if it does break.

Re:Do we really need this? (1)

Gat0r30y (957941) | more than 5 years ago | (#23685281)

You make an excellent point. What exactly is the problem developers are having that this solves:

Ruby developers would not have to go through the machinations of using something like the RJS (Ruby JavaScript) utility, where they write Ruby code and RJS generates JavaScript code to run on the client

I'm not a Ruby developer and frankly don't know squat about it (web.py myself - its pretty darn bad ass) Is this really a problem for Ruby developers? With IronRuby - Django and the litany of tools available to developers a guess I'm just failing to see what this does for anyone? Any Ruby developers out there care to fill me in? Do you really need to run client side code? Does RJS not work for you?

LINUX SUCKS (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23684717)

Javascript sucks anyway. Just like Linux and Mac. You nerds think its cool to use Linux. ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG!ONE!!!ONE!!!11!ELEVEN

-Steve Ballmer

This time (0, Troll)

Simon (S2) (600188) | more than 5 years ago | (#23684779)

Microsoft did somethin cool and useful. I am absolutely 100% certain that almost every comment on this article will bash MS some way or another for this, but this time, this feature, is something grat. Everybody thinks that javascript just doesn't cut it for current Web Apps, and it was never meant to work like we make it work today. Switch to something else is just the right thing to do, and if it is ruby (or python or anything else that is FLOSS for that matter), that's just great. kudos for making the first step. Hopfully others will follow.

Re:This time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23684849)

I didn't read the article but the abstract just implies that they "will" do it. I may care when it is done. I certainly don't care about it in the interim.

Agree, this is gart (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23684909)

As in "Goofy And Retarded Tactic"

Microsoft can't handle browser security with the existing frameworks. I'm SURE adding ruby to the mix is going to make it alllll better.

Afraid this is neither cool, nor useful

Re:This time (5, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 5 years ago | (#23684911)

Everybody thinks that javascript just doesn't cut it for current Web Apps, and it was never meant to work like we make it work today.

Are you a troll (perhaps even a shill) or just a schmuck? There's nothing seriously wrong with Javascript as a language, only with specific implementations, some of which are actually quite good these days.

I'm guessing you are just a troll, but I don't want anyone to think you're right or anything and I have a little time on my hands :P

Re:This time (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 5 years ago | (#23684953)

He is a troll/schmuck. Go look at his other user comments and the shit he says.

examples: look at his open source comments, etc.

Re:This time (1)

Simon (S2) (600188) | more than 5 years ago | (#23685149)

What's wrong with my open source comments? Maybe you should go and reply with some arguments instead of just writing nonsense.

Re:This time (1)

Simon (S2) (600188) | more than 5 years ago | (#23685117)

Are you a troll (perhaps even a shill) or just a schmuck? There's nothing seriously wrong with Javascript as a language, only with specific implementations, some of which are actually quite good these days.

No, I am not trolling. I am very serious and I mean what I write. Just because there is nothing wrong with Javascript does not mean there should be nothing else beside it that is better. There was nothing wrong with Cobol as well, but something better came up one day. Was that the only argument you had?

I'm guessing you are just a troll, but I don't want anyone to think you're right or anything and I have a little time on my hands :P

Calling me a troll seems to be the only thing you are able to do. Just elaborate on what you think instead of calling names like 3yr old.

Re:This time (3, Insightful)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 5 years ago | (#23684915)

Why?

Why is this good to run Silverlight?

Running silverlight on anything non-windows is like shoving legal issues up someone's ass and waiting for them to cough out the settlement.

Ruby on rails also seemed to work just fine without siverlight...and as comments show, more languages in the mix is not a good thing.

So yes, people are trashing MS because there is something wrong with this. If MS did anything right, we wouldnt' trash MS, we'd praise them. In this case, as usual, they haven't done anything right. I'd be glad to praise MS if they actually did something that wasn't underhanded, but when was the last time you can recall them doing that?

Re:This time (2, Insightful)

JasterBobaMereel (1102861) | more than 5 years ago | (#23685065)

Microsoft did something not cool and not useful

Not cool as in hijack something cool and do something that ties it to their latest thing...

Not useful as in only works in the next version of their system, if you have their modified version of Ruby and IIS and use Internet Explorer ...

So this is another way to break all the other systems ... and Silverlight was allegedly cross-platform ... this cuts it down to .... windows only again ...

Re:This time (1, Insightful)

Simon (S2) (600188) | more than 5 years ago | (#23685247)

Microsoft did something not cool and not useful
Well, if you don't like it, don't use it. We all have different tastes.

Not cool as in hijack something cool and do something that ties it to their latest thing...
How exactly is this going to tie ruby to silverlight? This will use ruby in IE instead/together with javascript. This will in no way affect MRI that will continue to exist just fine as it did until now.

Not useful as in only works in the next version of their system, if you have their modified version of Ruby and IIS and use Internet Explorer ...
The article and the summary are very clear that this will be a client side implementation of ruby. No IIS involved. And yes, it will work only in IE if nobody else implements it. What's wrong with that? It's the same with XUL: nobody else can use that.

So this is another way to break all the other systems ... and Silverlight was allegedly cross-platform ... this cuts it down to .... windows only again ...
Ruby is cross platform. If Silverlight will ever be, we'll see (I am not holding my breath).

Re:This time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23685337)

Microsoft did somethin cool and useful. I am absolutely 100% certain that almost every comment on this article will bash MS some way or another for this
It turns out you were wrong, at least half the posts here have been bashing Ruby.

Simply the most snore worthy post of the day. (1)

Torinaga-Sama (189890) | more than 5 years ago | (#23684843)

I think I will write something that will convert Lisp to Javascript.

ALAX!!!

Re:Simply the most snore worthy post of the day. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23684973)

Too slow :P

http://common-lisp.net/project/parenscript/

Re:Simply the most snore worthy post of the day. (1)

NewbieProgrammerMan (558327) | more than 5 years ago | (#23685175)

First you need to write a domain-specific language on top of Lisp, and perhaps name it "Extraneous Xtension of Lisp," and *then* port it to Silverlight.

Then you can become the first Microsoft-Certified provider of AEXLAX web apps.

Ummm What? (1)

ProfessionalCookie (673314) | more than 5 years ago | (#23684971)

Javascript to Ruby? And I thought we were all finally getting over the idea that XML is a great way to to do asynchronous apps. Json etc..

ARAX via AJAX? (1)

kiehlster (844523) | more than 5 years ago | (#23684979)

So now that Steve Yegge [blogspot.com] ported Rails to Javascript, is Microsoft trying to act like the henchman who attempts to please the master by trying to axe Javascript in favor of the master's love for Ruby in spite the fact that it was a bad idea to begin with?

Why is this news? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23684981)

Seriously! The entire PREMISE to Silverlight 2.0 is that you run a .NET runtime on the client. So C#, VB, boo, etc. are all possible. Absolutely not a surprise that IronRuby works too.

Is this news because of some kind of "OMG, TEH RUBY!" factor?

Are we seriously going to have another news item for IronPython ("APAX"), J# ("AJ#AX"), F# ("AFAX") or IronLisp ("ALAX")?

Hmmm... (4, Funny)

Mr Z (6791) | more than 5 years ago | (#23684999)

Maybe we need an infrastructure for this. An infrastructure that would be common among multiple languages. And then you could run any language that can target this common language infrastructure. And if you manage it properly it could be secure....

See, that's sharp isn't it? Of course, it might seem like I'm parroting a bunch of buzzwords in this monologue, but I really have a message... I'm not just making small talk. I think that's enough pearls of wisdom in one post.

--Joe

another mess (1)

Tim4444 (1122173) | more than 5 years ago | (#23685011)

Didn't Microsoft have a big role in making ajax a mess in the first place? 'Ok everyone, iframes!! no, wait ActiveXObject requests!! no, wait Msxml2 ActiveXObject requests!! no, wait arax with our own proprietary plugin that nobody supports!!'

Actually, ajax works pretty well nowadays. Why don't they work on something that really needs help, like css. Or maybe they think their dynamic expressions were the silver bullet...

Yet another browser plug-in... (1)

Nathanbp (599369) | more than 5 years ago | (#23685013)

So you can now use Ruby on Microsoft's Flash/Java Applet clone browser plugin. Are we now going to have AFAX and AAAX for sending XML to Flash and Java Applets?

I mean, really, how is this new? If you're willing to use a browser plug-in instead of just what comes with the browser out of the box, who cares what language it runs (as mentioned in other comments, you could already put Ruby in a Java applet with JRuby), or what format it communicates with the server in?

Re:Yet another browser plug-in... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23685295)

Next step: a browser written in "ARAX". It'll be a client side equivalent of writing a web server in PHP.

Yay (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23685069)

Another language, another client-side plugin, another opportunity to have the same old security leaks once again.

Not really running in thr browser (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23685071)

" Today if I want to use it in the browser I have to port it to JavaScript. Now I can just run it in the browser."
          Except you're not running it in the browser. You're running it in a platform-specific browser plug-in. You might as well just make a Ruby plugin at that point. The whole point of Javascript (and AJAX) is that it doesn't require platform-specific plugins to operate.

          And, contrary to what people might now say in response to this post, Silverlight is VERY platform-specific. 1.0 supports Vista, XPSP2, OSX for PPC and Intel. 2.0 supports Vista, XPSP2, 2000 (but ONLY with IE6, no Firefox), and OSX for Intel -- no PPC for version 2. Neither supports anything else such as Linux, BSDs, phones, etc. And, no, it doesn't cut it to say "Oh, Mono's working on it and maybe they'll have a version eventually"... they don't have one, and it's vaporware until they do.

          I like Ruby, but honestly, Silverlight is just another mechanism for Microsoft to try to lock out their Linux-based compeitotors.

Sh@tload of buzzwords stuffed into a paragraph (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 5 years ago | (#23685121)

just check it out :

"eWeek reports that Microsoft's Silverlight platform will support Ruby client-side scripting, enabling ARAX â" or Asynchronous Ruby and XML. Would be cool to have the option to script client-side in something other than Javascript. 'In essence, using ARAX, Ruby developers would not have to go through the machinations of using something like the RJS (Ruby JavaScript) utility, where they write Ruby code and RJS generates JavaScript code to run on the client, Lam said. "Sure, you could do it that way, but then at some point you might have to add some JavaScript code that adds some custom functionality on the client yourself," he said. "So there's always that sense of, 'Now I'm in another world. And wouldn't it be nice if I have this utility class I wrote in Ruby...' Today if I want to use it in the browser I have to port it to JavaScript. Now I can just run it in the browser."'"
sh@tload of stuff pumped into the net, as if previous buzzwords they are capitalizing on has gained any noticeable audience apart from some big boys.

they basically say 'make room for arax whilst you are on ajax', and while representing all our data with XML, and client side scripting with ruby, AND, on microsoft's silverlight to boot !!!

let me give you a heads up. the usage for even ajax is very low, because it is a pain in the ass to develop them (therefore costly) and maintain/update them, limiting its usage to big boys like google, facebook, whatever and buzzword enthusiasts. the general audience for web development is refraining from them because they do not have the resources to allocate to 'on the fly' updating of a web page slot instead of having to submit the page or whatever, because they have more functional stuff they need done other than thingamajig.

ruby ? as with ajax -> client side scripting = trouble. security programs shun them, they are prone to being exploited for malicious purposes, you have to work your butt off to make sure that most of your visitors' browsers, AND even pcs display them, because a pc with a rather crowded load on its system tray (being loaded of a medium amount of resident programs) and a few normal programs open can get locked up during a client side scripting hammering from your web site. name your pick.

im not even gonna comment on siverlight. while php is around, sorry ms, but fat chance. even 55 year old seniors living in middle of nowhere in Ohio, running small tools and gadget businesses and wanting to get their business on the web know Php, and come ask you to get a website for them in Php. silverlight ? whats that ?

XML ? it was 'the way data would be represented in future'. what happened ?

i cant find any reason for pumping the developer crowd with such buzzwords and fads other than screwing them with more books for 'new way of developing with (insert buzzword)'. which is despicable, in my opinion, for it is little short of stock market speculation.

Uruk-Hai (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23685163)

this reminds me of the scene in the lord of the rings where Saruman proclaims he has successfully bred Orcs and Goblins and that crazy thing hatches out of a slimey membrane.

A bogus feature for a bogus browser (1)

mlwmohawk (801821) | more than 5 years ago | (#23685249)

Sorry Ruby fans, the problem with this is that it is intended to add "distinction" to MSIE. OK, how is that a bad thing?

Microsoft's monopoly control over personal computers allows it to do things that other companies couldn't do.

If they introduce this on their monopoly platform, then web site designers who drink the MS koolaid start using it. Violla! anti-competition, people HAVE to use Windows to use those sites. Unless and until Firefox, Safari, or Opra support this brain dead feature.

Any other company, with REAL competition, would make its support for the standards better, not try to introduce new standards.

The web is supposed to be based on standards by which *everyone* can communicate. Microsoft has been trying to use its monopoly position for too long to stop this and proprietize internet protocols and formats. This is just one more attempt to build even more lock-in to IE.

This time they are using gung-ho Ruby developers to help them. I hope, but am not confident, that the ruby guys see the trap.

Ruby is just the rebirth of Perl (1)

ChronoFish (948067) | more than 5 years ago | (#23685309)

Lets face reality. There are people who LOVE Perl, and those who tolerate it. Those who love traditional languages like C/C++/Java tend to hate Perl. Those who LOVE Perl tend to dislike C/C++/Java etc.

JavaScript and PHP (aside from being scripting languages) are very C like in their syntax.

That's why such a huge number PHP/Java developers jumped ship over to Ruby - Ruby gave all those Perl developers a new (and seemingly socially acceptable) outlet.

Back to the original story though.... MS will do to Ruby what MS has done to Java (J++), JavaScript (JScript), and HTML : Embrace, Distort, Split.

The game-plan is to recapture market share by luring developers to the Windows Platform and then perverting the language so that developers get frustrated trying to develop for two different standards (MS 'standard' vs the 'open' standard).

Ultimately this becomes a market-share vs purity contest and while (thankfully) the OS community has been able to challenge MS - MS almost always has the market-share force.

-CF

In other news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23685371)

In other news Redmond Washington was bombed by the US Air Force today. President Bush is quoted as saying, "they had allied themselves with ARAX"
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...