Beta
×

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!

Mozilla Extending Javascript?

Zonk posted more than 9 years ago | from the busy-little-devs dept.

Mozilla 286

Nomad128 writes "Mozilla's Deer Park 1 Alpha RC appears to have extended the Javascript spec for the first time in quite some time. New features include Array object methods "every" (logical AND), "some" (logical OR), "map" (function mapping), and "forEach" (iteration). They also appear to have added native XML support. Will this speed up the development of AJAX applications and give Moz a leg-up over IE7?"

cancel ×

286 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Javascript Extensions (5, Insightful)

TheSpoom (715771) | more than 9 years ago | (#12665707)

I don't think the Javascript extensions will be used very much. Personally, I'm coding Javascript that will work in most browsers, which means I have to specifically exclude this new Javascript unless IE et al also implement it (and even then, older browsers still won't like it). Not to be anti-Mozilla, but this does sound a bit like embrace and extend to me. (Yes, I know it's open source and others can read the specs.)

On the other hand, it looks like the things that they did add were mostly based on standards and the DOM spec, so we'll see where this goes.

Re:Javascript Extensions (4, Informative)

1010011010 (53039) | more than 9 years ago | (#12665750)

If they are useful for people developing on the "mozilla platform", then they are useful features. For example, Firefox and Thunderbird, and extensions to each, can use these new features. They can't be used in web pages unless you want them to be Mozilla-only, of course.

Re:Javascript Extensions (5, Insightful)

eyeye (653962) | more than 9 years ago | (#12665755)

As a XUL developer I welcome these additions that will make the language more pleasant to code in.

They shouldnt be used where they impact on cross browser compatibility though.

Re:Javascript Extensions (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12665950)

In other words, they shouldn't be used anywhere that everyone isn't using the latest/greatest Mozilla, or , for all practical intents and purposes, anyfreakingwhere. So they're how useful, exactly?

Re:Javascript Extensions (1, Redundant)

JohnFluxx (413620) | more than 9 years ago | (#12666179)

Um, useful for XUL just like the parent said.

Re:Javascript Extensions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12666010)

There are some important differences between these extensions to the language and MSIE's extensions to the language:
  1. Microsoft have in the past _encouraged_ the use of their stuff on the public internet. Anyone ever seen those lame free message board sites with "glowing" text? Ugh.
  2. These have internal uses; see above. You can't even touch IE6's chrome AFAIK. (Maxthon/Avant don't use IE's visual interface at all, they just use its code interface)

Re:Javascript Extensions (2, Interesting)

vidarlo (134906) | more than 9 years ago | (#12665779)

I don't think the Javascript extensions will be used very much. Personally, I'm coding Javascript that will work in most browsers, which means I have to specifically exclude this new Javascript unless IE et al also implement it (and even then, older browsers still won't like it). Not to be anti-Mozilla, but this does sound a bit like embrace and extend to me. (Yes, I know it's open source and others can read the specs.)

This mainly depends whatever any other browser picks it up. Compare this with last story, about a new browser war. Clearly the firefox developers have to keep a very sharp focus at extending and develeoping mozilla/firefox to keep up against IE7. Only thing I hope is that it won't lead to the spagethi-code-era once again...

One thing I'm wondering is if there is a single standard for javascript. Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] has a entry about javascript, mentioning ECMA-script. How does those addons fit into the standards?

Re:Javascript Extensions (4, Informative)

neil.pearce (53830) | more than 9 years ago | (#12666196)

ECMA spec allows you to add in anything you want...

A conforming implementation of ECMAScript is permitted to provide additional types, values, objects,
properties, and functions beyond those described in this specification. In particular, a conforming
implementation of ECMAScript is permitted to provide properties not described in this specification, and
values for those properties, for objects that are described in this specification.

Re:Javascript Extensions (2, Insightful)

KiloByte (825081) | more than 9 years ago | (#12665805)

Right, nearly all time spent coding in Javascript is spent making sure it works correctly in different browsers.
Unfortunately, it will be a cold day in hell when IE has decent support for the standards -- and add an aeon or two until older versions of IE are phased out.

This said, I'm not a web developer myself -- but when I updated our company's website recently, I would have spent around 10% of the time I needed. Coding around all quirks in different browsers is NOT FUN.

Re:Javascript Extensions (1)

blowdart (31458) | more than 9 years ago | (#12665944)

it will be a cold day in hell when IE has decent support for the standard

And of course when someone goes their own way and breaks the standard by embrace and extend then supporting the standard doesn't help. If MS did this slashdot would be up in arms, when it's Open Source suddenly it's ok?

Re:Javascript Extensions (3, Insightful)

KiloByte (825081) | more than 9 years ago | (#12665994)

You're right. Embrace and extend is wrong anywhere.

It's exactly why the metric system is so much better than the imperial one: instead of land miles, sea miles, survey miles, international miles, furlongs, leagues, feet, etc, you have just a single unit. Even Americans can't stick to a single mile (they have like 3 or 4) -- and this is what makes miles something really repulsive to me. Similarily with web standards: if you need to write everything separately for every possible browser and its version, everything becomes a hell -- no matter if the browsers come from the Bad or the Good side.

Re:Javascript Extensions (2, Interesting)

DrSkwid (118965) | more than 9 years ago | (#12666127)

if you did spend all day working in ajavscript, then you'd know that you can create a standard library that will work cross browser

one can replace any functions that are missing or don't work how you like them.

I remember back in the days before getElementById in I.E. I added my own so that I could write my code assuming it was present :

document.getElementById = function (id) { ..... }

as you go along you find out what works what doesn't.

It's not *that* different from developing wxWindows or gtk to work on windows & X : find the glitches, work round 'em

Re:Javascript Extensions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12666246)

IE 5.0 suppored getElementById in 1998 -- what other browsers supported this method before IE did?

Re:Javascript Extensions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12665933)

Doesn't extending the basic ARRAY object affect other things that inherit from it like strings, structures, etc. (and anything that inherit from THOSE as well)?

Re:Javascript Extensions (1)

neil.pearce (53830) | more than 9 years ago | (#12666180)

Strings don't inherit from Arrays.
Strings call chain is "String prototype object" --> "Object prototype object"

But anything with a call chain ending in the Array prototype object would be affected.

Re:Javascript Extensions (4, Informative)

neil.pearce (53830) | more than 9 years ago | (#12666071)

Well, I only had a quick look, but these extensions don't appear to be very difficult to reproduce in other browsers...

The following mimics the forEach extension - and works in Mozilla, Opera and IE

Array.prototype.forEach = function(fn) {
for(var i =0; i this.length; ++i) {
fn(this[i], i, this);
}
}

function foo(obj, index, array) {
alert("index " + index + " is " + obj);
}

[4,5,6].forEach(foo);

(Only had a quick look at the Mozilla article and 5 mins knocking the source up, so excuse any silly errors)

Re:Javascript Extensions (4, Informative)

neil.pearce (53830) | more than 9 years ago | (#12666156)

Ditto for "map". Actually I didn't notice they also specified an optional "this object" for forEach()...

Array.prototype.map = function(fn, array) {
var thisObject = array == undefined ? this : array;
var result = [];
for(var i =0; i thisObject.length; ++i) {
result.push(fn(thisObject[i]));
}
return result;
}

function makeUpperCase(obj) {
return obj.toUpperCase();
}

strings = [ "hello", "Array", "WORLD" ];
uppers = strings.map(makeUpperCase);

alert(uppers);
alert(strings);

Re:Javascript Extensions (1)

neil.pearce (53830) | more than 9 years ago | (#12666261)

Slashdot filter stole the less than comparison within the for loops...

Re:Javascript Extensions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12666225)

I find that both IE and Mozilla have some weirdness when it comes to "advanced" Javascript, neither to me seems to do things the way they are supposed to. Thus I almost always end up making different scripts for IE and Mozilla(And Safari, opera etc. they all seem pretty consistent in their wierdness).
This gives me some more tools for the Mozilla part that I will propperbly end up using.

Firefox "stuck" at 10% market share (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12665716)

So let's use Microsoft tactics to increase that?

Re:Firefox "stuck" at 10% market share (5, Funny)

Tatarize (682683) | more than 9 years ago | (#12665772)

I agree, lets bundle it with Linux.

Hmm..

What? (2, Insightful)

Umbral Blot (737704) | more than 9 years ago | (#12665718)

Ok I understand there are several benefits to this for extension writers. However, I seriously doubt that it will be used in many other places. After all who wants to write web pages that won't work properly in IE and Safari?

Re:What? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12665792)

Right now I'm doing some Web development work within my company where I can control all of the specs. I KNOW what computers, what browsers, &c. will be using the application and if these extensions were to prove useful, I'd just use them. The plan all along was to standardize on Mozilla for this, so that's not really a problem.

Would I use this for a site that outsiders would ever access? No.

Way to go! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12665847)

Fuck standards! After all, Mozilla will still be around in ten years, and anyway your client will never decide to switch.

Right?

Re:Way to go! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12665940)

In this particular case, right.

Re:What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12665984)

After all who wants to write web pages that won't work properly in IE and Safari?

Why Safari? Does anyone really care about writing for a webbrowser with a marketshare ceiling of ~3%? Safari isn't even a minor player in this round of "browser wars" and realistically no single-platform, non-monopoly browser is ever going to be.

Re:What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12666096)

"Does anyone really care about writing for a webbrowser with a marketshare ceiling of ~3%?"

Yes, when that 3% tends to include the smartest and wealthiest among us:

. . . And it turns out that users of Apple computers are a more desirable demographic to advertisers than are PC users.

"With above-average household income and education levels, the Mac population presents a very attractive target for marketers, both online and offline," says NetRatings director and principal analyst T.S. Kelly.

The report notes that Mac computer users tend to be creative, loyal and tech-savvy. . . .

http://news.com.com/2100-1040-943519.html?tag=fd_t op [com.com]
http://www.medialifemagazine.com/news2002/jul02/ju l22/1_mon/news4monday.html [medialifemagazine.com]
http://www.internetnews.com/stats/article.php/1403 581 [internetnews.com]
http://www.macobserver.com/article/2002/07/15.1.sh tml [macobserver.com]

Re:What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12666207)

Great! Since a company is likely to only get 10% of a particular market, you go ahead and take 10% of the elite 3% (0.3% of the entire market) and I'll take 10% of the mundane 97% (9.7% of the entire market).

Now, each one your customers have to spend more than 32 (9.7/0.3) times as much as one of my customers for you to catch up to me. In the meantime, I am getting the revenue I need to expand in the entire market.

Moz Extensions (4, Interesting)

multipartmixed (163409) | more than 9 years ago | (#12665720)

This isn't a case of 'embrace and extend', microsoft-style -- this is a case of extra functionality needed to write extensions. Any web developer using these for public apps is clearly a butt-head.

Make way for the "butt-heads" (2, Interesting)

Short Circuit (52384) | more than 9 years ago | (#12665761)

I think we're going to see some of the same things added to IE7's Javascript engine, but implemented differently.

Which means more special-case code for web developers.

Re:Moz Extensions (1)

blowdart (31458) | more than 9 years ago | (#12665954)

it will be a cold day in hell when IE has decent support for the standard

Just like the Microsoft objects in java were extra functionality to allow you to write java programs to hook into the OS? Once you go outside a standard it's not good, no matter who the source. Unless you want to go back to <blink>?

Re:Moz Extensions (1)

jesser (77961) | more than 9 years ago | (#12666040)

This isn't a case of 'embrace and extend'... Any web developer using these for public apps is clearly a butt-head.

Couldn't you have used the same argument to defend IE's extensions to DOM?

Re:Moz Extensions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12666095)

Couldn't you have used the same argument to defend IE's extensions to DOM?

Of course, but not here ;)

HaHaHa (1)

badriram (699489) | more than 9 years ago | (#12666264)

you must be kidding yourself. MS added functionality to do what, not for developers to use them. Extending a standard aka EMCAScript, IS extending it, they are doing exactly what MS and Netscape did back in the day.

But I do not mind that because otherwise we would not have font, css and many of the other things people take for granted in html.

Funny... I thought ECMAScript was an open standard (2, Insightful)

spectecjr (31235) | more than 9 years ago | (#12665735)

... and not something that the Mozilla guys could futz around with on a whim.

Mind you, we are talking about the people who brought you the BLINK tag.

Re:Funny... I thought ECMAScript was an open stand (3, Interesting)

slavemowgli (585321) | more than 9 years ago | (#12665873)

Most, if not all, Mozilla extensions use Javascript, so that's most likely what these changes are aimed at. I don't think you're supposed to use them on public webpages; if the Mozilla guys really care, then they'll also make sure that these extensions won't work in that case.

Re:Funny... I thought ECMAScript was an open stand (2, Insightful)

spectecjr (31235) | more than 9 years ago | (#12665891)

Most, if not all, Mozilla extensions use Javascript, so that's most likely what these changes are aimed at. I don't think you're supposed to use them on public webpages; if the Mozilla guys really care, then they'll also make sure that these extensions won't work in that case.

Funny... that exact same argument didn't work for Microsoft with their extensions to Java... why should we let Mozilla get away with it?

Re:Funny... I thought ECMAScript was an open stand (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12665928)

Mozilla is not a convicted monopolist, you fucktard

Re:Funny... I thought ECMAScript was an open stand (0)

miyako (632510) | more than 9 years ago | (#12665959)

Because there are certain things that it's not ok to do when you have a monopoly that it would be ok to do if your an underdog?
The thing about it is, Mozilla does not have anywhere near the marketshare of Windows, and people who are going to use and develop for Mozilla have generally heard of IE and other browsers, and know of compatibility issues, etc. I know a lot of Windows/Java developers who might have heard the word "Linux" but don't even know that it's an OS. These same people have never heard the word Kernel outside of discussion of popcorn. This is because of Microsoft's monopoly. Now, if someone has never even heard of an alternative, let alone aware of the limitations of the implementatinon of the language they are using to run cross-platform because of some "additions", then they end up making things by accident that only run under Microsoft's version of Java. This only fruthers Microsoft's monopoly.

Re:Funny... I thought ECMAScript was an open stand (1)

Infernal Device (865066) | more than 9 years ago | (#12665972)

Because there are certain things that it's not ok to do when you have a monopoly that it would be ok to do if your an underdog?

So now we tilt the playing field in favor of Mozilla. The problem is, when do we un-tilt it?

Re:Funny... I thought ECMAScript was an open stand (1)

mini me (132455) | more than 9 years ago | (#12666033)

The problem is, when do we un-tilt it?

That one is easy. When everyone starts using Firefox and we start liking something else.

Re:Funny... I thought ECMAScript was an open stand (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12665978)

Funny... that exact same argument didn't work for Microsoft with their extensions to Java... why should we let Mozilla get away with it?

Microsoft's problem with respect to Java was that in extending it they were breaching a contract with Sun. Of course arguments about why they were doing it didn't help them; their contract didn't provide for any such exemptions. Mozilla have no contractual obligations, that I'm aware of, to implement JAvascript/ECMAscript in any particular way.

Re:Funny... I thought ECMAScript was an open stand (3, Insightful)

spectecjr (31235) | more than 9 years ago | (#12666004)

Microsoft's problem with respect to Java was that in extending it they were breaching a contract with Sun. Of course arguments about why they were doing it didn't help them; their contract didn't provide for any such exemptions. Mozilla have no contractual obligations, that I'm aware of, to implement JAvascript/ECMAscript in any particular way.

I don't care about the case; I care about the arguments that nearly everyone on Slashdot made at the time as to why Microsoft were in the wrong - namely that they were deliberately making it harder to write cross-platform code that worked the same way everywhere.

When asked why this was a problem when you can turn off the extensions using a command line switch, nearly everyone wrote back that it was still subverting standards, and that software developers wouldn't know the difference between writing Microsoft-specific Java code, and regular, Sun Java code.

The exact same argument applies here. If this goes ahead, developers won't know when they're writing Mozilla Javascript code, and when they're writing standards-correct ECMAScript code.

The amount of hypocrisy on slashdot is amazing. It seems to be like this:

When Microsoft subverts open standards in an embrace and extend manner, it's evil.

When Mozilla (or anyone else does it), it's great! It's good! It's expected! It's the way innovation goes forward!

At least you guys could discuss amongst yourselves and put out a consistent message at some point. Or heck, just be honest - if it hurts Microsoft, it's A-OK by us!

Re:Funny... I thought ECMAScript was an open stand (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12666144)

I'm well aware of the /. double standard, but the key here is intent.

Compare the amount of IE written in Java to the amount of Mozilla written in Javascript. Compare the advantages of having a Windows-specific Java program to a 100% portable Java program. Compare the active progress of the Java standard under its developer vs. the stagnant progress of the Javascript standard, and ask yourself which language needed outside help more.

Looks like hypocracy on the surface, but if you dissect the issue most of it goes away. That said, I'd much rather see active development of and participation in open web standards by these organizations, but none of them have even achieved full CSS2 compliance yet.

Re:Funny... I thought ECMAScript was an open stand (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12666237)

If you are writing an extension to Mozilla, why should you care if it works in IE or not?

Re:Funny... I thought ECMAScript was an open stand (2, Informative)

pomo monster (873962) | more than 9 years ago | (#12666016)

C'mon, mods, the parent poster makes a good point. It's only "flamebait" if you're ready to apologize for the hypocrisy of the Mozilla developers.

For the record, the new methods are NOT ECMA standards, according to the Array object reference [mozilla.org] . In other words, developers relying on these methods will be locking themselves into Gecko, unless other vendors scramble to support them, which they will likely do in buggy and incomplete ways--which, incidentally, is exactly what standards (like ECMAScript) were supposed to prevent.

I suspect we'll be seeing similar non-standard extensions to CSS and (X)HTML in the months and years to come, rendering the W3C more and more irrelevant. The standards armistice was always a nice dream, I guess, and it was good while it lasted. So much for that.

Dark Peer? (1, Funny)

tunabomber (259585) | more than 9 years ago | (#12665739)

My dyslexic eyes first read "Mozilla's Deer Park" as "Mozilla's Dark Peer". I was pretty disappointed when I corrected myself. Having a P2P darknet with a XUL frontend would be pretty badass, after all.

Oh well, time to RTFA.

Re:Dark Peer? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12665992)

Wow, you are messed up aren't you?
I did not realize that reading it right was such as special thing.

Article badly termed? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12665743)

They're not extending javascript from what I can see. It looks like they're implementing some features that weren't implemented before.

Re:Article badly termed? (4, Funny)

rbarreira (836272) | more than 9 years ago | (#12665895)

Yeah. In other news, I don't want to shoot you, I just want to fire a gun at you...

Re:Article badly termed? (1)

rbarreira (836272) | more than 9 years ago | (#12665936)

By the way:

JavaScript 1.5 (Gecko 1.8b2 and later): added every, filter, forEach, indexOf, lastIndexOf, some, and map methods (not part of ECMA spec)

Re:Article badly termed? (1)

Landaras (159892) | more than 9 years ago | (#12666080)

Yeah. In other news, I don't want to shoot you, I just want to fire a gun at you...

This is veering off topic, but what the heck.

<Stewey from Family Guy>

"It's not that I want to kill her... I just want her not to be alive anymore.

</Stewey from Family Guy>

Slashdot post badly termed? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12665952)

They're not extending javascript from what I can see. It looks like they're implementing some features that weren't implemented before.

That's the very definition of extending a language.

In any event, the new language changes are obvious and welcome. It makes array and map manipulation more like Python.

Re:Slashdot post badly termed? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12666038)

implementing features that _were_ in the spec but weren't in the implementation... so no, that's not the very definition of extending a language.

Re:Slashdot post badly termed? (2, Informative)

EvanED (569694) | more than 9 years ago | (#12666215)

You're failing to distinguish between the language and implementations of the language.

By analogy, the C++ language has changed once since 1997 (with the technical corrigendum that fixed a couple relatively minor issues).

However, it was only fairly recently that there has been a compiler and library that has implemented the standard apparently correctly.

This does not mean that when a compiler writer adds support for the hell that is 'export' he or she is extending the language. By contrast, the only thing they're extending is the amount of the language their tool implements.

I don't know what the OP was thinking, but I suspect it's along those lines.

(Granted, from the other posts it sounds like Mozilla is in fact extending the language.)

Kettle meets Pot (4, Insightful)

Neopoleon (874543) | more than 9 years ago | (#12665756)

Great.

So, people used to get pissed off about Microsoft playing around with scripting features in IE that weren't available on other platforms, but now it's going to be an *advantage* for Mozilla?

Hello-o-oo-oooo-o-ooooo...

On the road to Mozilla 2.0 (2, Insightful)

Phoinix (666047) | more than 9 years ago | (#12665757)

I view these developments as steps on the road of Mozilla 2.0 It makes sense that a new major version of the open source browser includes innovations just like what Netscape did for their Navigator.

Wow (1)

TheAncientHacker (222131) | more than 9 years ago | (#12665765)

Maybe this time they'll actually not think that two digit years are automaticaly in the 20th Century.

Or, heaven forbid, they'll actually use the actual standards based (and *GASP* Microsoft sponsored) ECMAScript as a base which had already fixed their embarassingly humerous (for a 1995 language) Y2K bug...

Re:Wow (1)

TheAncientHacker (222131) | more than 9 years ago | (#12665794)

Oh, and just to be precise, if they use a corrected base, perhaps it should be labeled that they're extending ECMAScript or ECMA Standard 262 Scripting Language or JScript since the name JavaScript was just a silly attempt for Netscape to try to glom on to SUN's Java PR machine by renaming their LiveScript language despite Java and JavaScript having nothing in common except being C derivatives written by companies that hated Microsoft.

Leg up over IE? (1)

Fantasy Football (886971) | more than 9 years ago | (#12665768)

Does this really give them a leg up? Let's think about that. Who would ever program something that DOESN'T work on IE? So many people use IE that you'd be committing programming suicide by making something that only works on Firefox and not on IE. I don't think this will have an impact.

Instead of adding more and more JS hacks... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12665769)

...in an attempt to make more of a rich-client experience possible, why not standardize on some actual RPC implementation that works on all browsers?

Using some off-the-shelf XMLHttpRequest xml messaging system or rolling my own is kind of annoying to get what should be standard functionality...and *not* written in javascript.

Re:Instead of adding more and more JS hacks... (1)

falconwolf (725481) | more than 9 years ago | (#12665852)

...in an attempt to make more of a rich-client experience possible, why not standardize on some actual RPC implementation that works on all browsers?

Because even "modern" browsers don't all support the same specs, at most only a small subset is supported across different browsers/platforms.

Falcon

other web browsers (1)

anandpur (303114) | more than 9 years ago | (#12665774)

What is the status with other web browsers Safari [apple.com] , Konqueror [konqueror.org] , Opera [opera.com] thay have little market share and say. Are thay ready?

what about the few of us stuck in no-mans land? (2, Funny)

multi-flavor-geek (586005) | more than 9 years ago | (#12665780)

Great more exstentions, more media I want to block, ugh... Why can't anyone write something to block all of this stuff out, I don't want to see graphics, or animations, or hear sounds, I love Opera, and it is my browser of choice but I still have to deal with unwanted flash animations. I am stuck on 26.4 bps dialup, due to bad phone lines, and lack of avaliability for cable/dsl/direct wireless. I do not want or need to see more bloat in webpages.
Ok, I am whining again, but you would whine too if you had to surf porn at 2.5 k/s.

Re:what about the few of us stuck in no-mans land? (2, Informative)

Lifewish (724999) | more than 9 years ago | (#12665858)

If you're on Windows, I'd strongly recommend Proxomitron [proxomitron.info] - a kickass personal web proxy that is able to strip out all the crap. If you're on Linux, there's Privoxy, or you could just use Greasemonkey [mozdev.org] (although that's possibly overkill).

Re:what about the few of us stuck in no-mans land? (4, Insightful)

Phroggy (441) | more than 9 years ago | (#12665913)

Great more exstentions, more media I want to block, ugh...

I don't think you have any idea what you're talking about. These extensions to JavaScript will make the language easier to program in, which will be nice for the parts of Mozilla that are written in JavaScript (quite a bit, actually) and for things like Firefox extensions. It doesn't sound like they'll provide any undesirable functionality - we're not talking about floating popup windows here.

Why can't anyone write something to block all of this stuff out, I don't want to see graphics, or animations, or hear sounds,

That's precisely what several Firefox extensions do, and these additions to JavaScript will make extensions like that easier to write and maintain (and probably faster to use and smaller to download).

I love Opera, and it is my browser of choice but I still have to deal with unwanted flash animations.

Well, maybe you should switch to Firefox with the FlashBlock extension [mozdev.org] . Or if you really never want to see Flash animations, you could always uninstall the Flash plugin...

Re:what about the few of us stuck in no-mans land? (1)

ninjaz (1202) | more than 9 years ago | (#12665935)

Someone has already written AdBlock [mozdev.org] for FireFox. Since it allows you to block page elements by pattern, you can use it to block file extensions from being displayed as well, eg., *.swf to kill all flash. It also has a panel you can open up which shows each element of the page, so you can block elements you can't right-click to select like Flash and MIDI. One of the nicer aspects is that you can choose to collapse the blocked elements, so there isn't a big blank spot on the page where the blocked element was.

Re:what about the few of us stuck in no-mans land? (1)

blue_adept (40915) | more than 9 years ago | (#12666199)

I don't want to see graphics, or animations, or hear sounds,... [snip]...Ok, I am whining again, but you would whine too if you had to surf porn at 2.5 k/s

what kind if imageless, soundless, unanimated porn are you surfing exactly? ;)

if you wanna convert images to text where possible, and save some bandwidth without having a butchered layout, try the anonycat web proxy, which will launch next week at anonycat.com, but you can test a beta preview here

http://207.148.148.73:8080/demo/servlet/varsitech. anonycat.AnonycatServlet [207.148.148.73]

Re:what about the few of us stuck in no-mans land? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12666238)

I have Adblock and ZoneAlarm Pro installed, both of which can block ads. But the one thing that really made my day was actually an extension called PrefBar for Firefox ; this gives you a toolbar with checkboxes for: colors, images, javascript and flash. I usually browse without images/js/flash, and only enable them when I know it's absolutely necessary (like images for news websites, flash for some games, javascript for one stupid newssite). This was the best solution for me, since it blocks everything until I enable it..

Re:what about the few of us stuck in no-mans land? (1)

Oriumpor (446718) | more than 9 years ago | (#12666245)

Back in the dark ages I used to surf primarily with Links since even images at that speed are unbearable.

Satelite internet could be an alternative but that's only marginally better if you're expecting the responsiveness and throughput of DSL/Cable etc. Typical satellite instalations are latent anywhere between 800ms~1200ms. I've seen a couple under 600ms regularly but these were rare. Not to mention 500kbps is about as high as you can get with it.

Direcway [direcway.com] have been at it for a while, Starband [starband.com] Provides similar service as well as automated trackers aimed towards mobile installations (RVs/Vans etc.)

The obligatory read the service contracts carefully applies to both.

Re:what about the few of us stuck in no-mans land? (1)

Oriumpor (446718) | more than 9 years ago | (#12666255)

lynx even

P.S. If satellite is out of the question 2 and 3 phone line bonded dialup is also possible in windows and linux.

About standard compilance (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12665788)

Deviance from standards (at least in a web environement) is bad because the code that works in one browser won't work in another browser.

But that's not necessarly a bad think in my opinion. If one browser starts extending and empowering web developper in many and novel ways, this browser may well raise the bar for all browsers and shit expectation (if developper find, in mass, that the features are worthwhile, cool, useful, etc...).

However, deviance from standards are bad if they are unsignificant, unrevolutionary, unimportant, just a little improvement (not to confound with many little improvments that combined can make a big difference).

So if you're going to deviate from standard, do it big time!

if you're going to deviate from standard, do it bi (1)

falconwolf (725481) | more than 9 years ago | (#12665898)

Don't deviate from standards, extend them. Make sure standards are followed then go beyond the standards, just make sure doing so doesn't create problems with the standards.

Falcon

The best part.. (4, Interesting)

Eloquence (144160) | more than 9 years ago | (#12665790)

..is the super fast back/forward cache (add a new positive Integer value browser.sessionhistory.max_viewers in about:config to enable it). My impression is that it's even faster than Opera's, though there seem to be some conditions under which a slower reload is used. In any case, this is an absolute killer feature, and I hope they manage to get it ready to be enabled by default for 1.1.

The other killer feature is, of course, SVG support by default -- unlike the crappy Adobe plugin, fast and reliable SVG support. A lot of stuff that is currently done in Flash can be done in SVG without any dependency on non-free software (or unstable, experimental open source players). Personally, I'm most excited about its possible uses in Wikipedia. Unlike a bitmap file, an SVG can be collaboratively edited: translate text, fix mistakes, and so on. Beyond illustrations, SVG is also useful for zoomable timelines [wikimedia.org] , of which Wikipedia has quite a few, and which are already exported as SVG.

I think that Firefox support for SVG could be a major reason to switch from other browsers if we come up with cool SVG-based applications (not that we really need more reasons to switch!). One thing that would be neat is the ability to generally pan and zoom an SVG file even if there are no JavaScript controls for that, I haven't seen that functionality. Perhaps a bookmarklet or GreaseMonkey script could do the trick.

I can't wait for the final version, but I'd be happy to wait 3 months longer if that's how long it takes to get it ready for primetime. One thing is for sure: Firefox 1.1 will kick butt.

Re:The best part.. (2, Informative)

BRock97 (17460) | more than 9 years ago | (#12666054)

I would like to second the parent's comments on SVG. I am extremely pumped this spec to be included by default in the next version of Firefox.

I would like to add another use to the list, though. Having an SVG canvas to use for XUL apps will be a blast to play around with. As a weather nerd, I can't wait to create XUL web apps with a GIS backend that uses SVG to describe the map and weather data. Combining the XUL widgets with a vector based canvas area will be quite the combination.

That said, I believe quite a few of these new extensions will come in handy when starting to program for these things. I, for one, welcome our new Javascript extension overlords...

Re:The best part.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12666081)

the super fast back/forward cache

So you can make firefox waste even more memory, by storing the DOM tree and javascript context of pages you've visited before... because it would be so horrible to have to wait a whole 0.5 seconds to re-parse and re-render those pages, right?

SVG support by default

W00t, support for a file format that's like Macromedia Flash except with much larger files and with only a tiny fraction of the functionality. I'm sure the 3 web sites that actually use it will be glad to hear it.

Firefox is turning into the Emacs of web browsers.

Sounds familar... (-1)

creimer (824291) | more than 9 years ago | (#12665795)

Sounds like Javascript is being turned into a client-side version of PHP. Do we need another version of PHP?

Re:Sounds familar... (0, Troll)

Phroggy (441) | more than 9 years ago | (#12665974)

Sounds like Javascript is being turned into a client-side version of PHP. Do we need another version of PHP?

PHP is server-side, so this is a completely stupid comparison. "Do we need another...?" On the client side, JavaScript is pretty much all we've got, so yeah, if we want more client-side functionality, JavaScript is the place to put it.

Besides, PHP is a terrible language. Sure, it's a lot nicer than C, and people with no background in either C or UNIX find it initially less confusing than Perl (which borrows a lot from both C and UNIX conventions), and the php.net documentation is very nicely presented. But here's why PHP sucks [tnx.nl] . Personally I find JavaScript's syntax for, say, handling regular expressions to be far less awkward and confusing than PHP's. JavaScript feels much more consistent to me.

Re:Sounds familar... (2, Insightful)

sumin k'adra (791595) | more than 9 years ago | (#12665991)

Uh, wow. Ever heard of domain? Let's see you get ANY php to run in ANY browser : P

lmao

More to the point foreach is great ... it reduces the need to do things like redeclaring variables just to be used in a for loop:

so instead of:

var y = x.childNodes;
for(var i=0; iy.length; i++){
do something with y[i]
}

i could just do

foreach(x.childnodes as y){
do something with y
}

So getting back to the point ... why is this a Bad Thing? of course other than the fact that I can only use it in one non-existant browser : )

Peace,
sk

Re:Sounds familar... (1)

zxSpectrum (129457) | more than 9 years ago | (#12666267)

So getting back to the point ... why is this a Bad Thing? of course other than the fact that I can only use it in one non-existant browser : )

I love questions answer themselves.

A signature I have seen somewhere (0, Offtopic)

Skiron (735617) | more than 9 years ago | (#12665832)

The march of progress:

C:
printf("%10.2f", x);

C++:
cout << setw(10) << setprecision(2) << showpoint << x;

Java:
java.text.NumberFormat formatter = java.text.NumberFormat.getNumberInstance();
formatter.setMinimumFractionDigits(2);
formatter.setMaximumFractionDigits(2);
String s = formatter.format(x);
for (int i = s.length(); i < 10; i++)
System.out.print(' ');
System.out.print(s);

Re:A signature I have seen somewhere (0, Offtopic)

CableModemSniper (556285) | more than 9 years ago | (#12665967)

C++: #include printf("%10.2f", x); // or #include char s[14]; sprintf(s, "%10.2f", x); cout s; Java: String s = String.format("%10.2f", x); System.out.print(s);

Re:A signature I have seen somewhere (0, Offtopic)

CableModemSniper (556285) | more than 9 years ago | (#12665981)

Oh god did that ever come out wrong.
C++:
#include <cstdio>
printf("%10.2f", x);
// or
#include <cstring>
char s[14];
sprintf(s, "%10.2f", x);
cout << s;
Java:
String s = String.format("%10.2f", x);
System.out.print(s);

Array methods (3, Insightful)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | more than 9 years ago | (#12665844)

Many of the new Array methods are similar to methods I've written myself and used for years. Admittedly the methods themselves aren't part of the ECMA spec, but object extension via prototyping is a core feature of the language. It shouldn't be difficult to implement them on your own for other browsers.

They'll just run a bit faster in Mozilla/FireFox, is all, since they'll be run as part of the interpreter rather than as interpreted code.

Most of the other stuff is based on W3C standards.

Short version: I'll continue to do cool stuff quickly in Moz and spend time writing workarounds for MSIE, just like I've been doing for the last 4-5 years. Nothing particularly new about that.

What the World Needs Here (2, Insightful)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 9 years ago | (#12665903)

What the world needs here is a JS plug-in that works with all major browsers (or a version for each) so that there really is a compatible language across them.

World Peace would be nice too.

Re:What the World Needs Here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12666021)

We better start with the world peace and only after that advance to harder problems, like cross-browser compatibility issues.

Oh, Who Cares (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12665910)

For Pete's sake, some of these stupid browser arguments are so obtuse it's silly. Do you realize that 99.99% of the world couldn't care less?

Get a life. Get a girlfriend. Please join the real world, not Planet Geek Virgin.

Help mozilla beat IE? (1)

PDAllen (709106) | more than 9 years ago | (#12665920)

It's kind of nice that the moz developers are extending the Javascript specs; and it'd certainly be nice if MS were to follow their lead.

But anyone who thinks that this will have any impact on browser use needs to think again.

OK, there will be a few websites that will use the new stuff and either break IE or put up a 'get a decent browser' page. But most people can't afford to throw away a vast majority of their market. So they need to write code that will work in IE; and if you've already written code that works in IE and Mozilla you won't bother redoing it just for Mozilla; even if the Mozilla-specific code could be half the length and easier to follow. So users won't have any incentive to switch to a Mozilla browser.

Canvas in Firefox 1.1 Developer Preview Release (1)

Andreas(R) (448328) | more than 9 years ago | (#12665934)

I got pretty excited when I read about some of the new JS improvements. Mostly about the new drawing-capabilities. All the details here [slashdot.org] .

Is is basically a direct-mode graphics canvas, as specified by WhatWG canvas specification [whatwg.org] , which allows you to draw all kinds of graphic primitives using Javascript. This is based on Apple's implemented in Safari.

I would hope that some highly innovative graphics-applications can become possible using Javascript, when this goes mainstream.

You know the answer (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12665945)

Mozilla Extending Javascript = yes (read the posting)
Are web designers going to use it = no since they like "write once, run everywhere"
Will extension developers use it = yes
Will anybody remember the person responsible for Javascript in the first place?
Well, see for yourself, a document that he maintains Roadmap [mozilla.org]

Javascript - blech (1)

ucblockhead (63650) | more than 9 years ago | (#12665985)

I wish they'd extend it by replacing it with python.

Re:Javascript - blech (1)

WilliamSChips (793741) | more than 9 years ago | (#12666133)

Python's syntactically significant whitespace, although nice, wouldn't fit well in tags. You'd have to only use external files. Although something like Greasemonkey with Python would be nice...

Re:Javascript - blech (1)

ucblockhead (63650) | more than 9 years ago | (#12666221)

Good point.

Really, I just want decent OO.

Native XML is a very neat feature (3, Interesting)

MarkEst1973 (769601) | more than 9 years ago | (#12666012)

Using Rhino http://www.mozilla.org/rhino [mozilla.org] -- which already has the E4X functionality in the runtime -- you can stuff like this (using an html document as my sample xml):

var html = <hmtl/>
html.head.title = "my title";

print(html);

This prints as:

<html>
<head>
<title>my title<title>
<head>
<html>

Although this is a contrived example, I find the ability to access XML as native objects using dot-notation to be very convenient and useful.

Yep, much faster. (1)

qa'lth (216840) | more than 9 years ago | (#12666034)

In fact, so much faster that now I'll need to do EVEN MORE cross-browser compatibility testing. Yay!

Like it wasn't bad enough with the conflicting methods in IE and Moz's javascript implementations.

All this nice new stuff... (1)

Mitchell Mebane (594797) | more than 9 years ago | (#12666119)

...but no inline-block. At least, not according to this page [mozilla.org] . :(

Slow Down Cowboy! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12666142)

Slashdot requires you to wait 2 minutes between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment.

It's been 5 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment

Chances are, you're behind a firewall or proxy, or clicked the Back button to accidentally reuse a form. Please try again. If the problem persists, and all other options have been tried, contact the site administrator.

so 5 is less than 2 now? WTF?

More links (3, Informative)

jesser (77961) | more than 9 years ago | (#12666226)

This entry in Asa Dotzler's blog [mozillazine.org] contains links for downloading this release candidate of Deer Park Alpha 1.1.

The article has links to New Web Developer Features [mozilla.org] and New Extension Developer Features [mozilla.org] . There's also a page listing New Browser Features [mozilla.org] and an unofficial page listing Notable bug fixes [squarefree.com] .
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>