×

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!

Cutting Through the Ajax Hype

kdawson posted more than 7 years ago | from the easy-rinse-formula dept.

The Internet 77

An anonymous reader writes "If you're thinking about building an Ajax application of your own, this article would be a good place to start. It's an introductory-level guide about when and how to implement Ajax. It provides a balanced discussion about where exactly using Ajax makes sense, and where it does not."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

77 comments

I cut through the hype, trimmed the pile (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17216598)

And in the end, there was nothing left.

Isn't it sort of saddening... (3, Interesting)

urbanradar (1001140) | more than 7 years ago | (#17216600)

...how much time passed in between stories about said AJAX hype hitting Slashdot and stories about "Cutting through the AJAX hype" hitting Slashdot?

Is anybody this stupid? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17216642)

It provides a balanced discussion about where exactly using Ajax makes sense, and where it does not.

AJAX is bullshit, a site has to work in a browser with script disabled and lets face it, most devs can't even handle that!

Look who's talking (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17216736)

You're going around calling people stupid, and you don't even know that you can use Ajax and still remain compatible with browsers with script disabled. That's a fundamental part of JavaScript, which only goes to show that you don't know the slightest thing about being a web developer.

Now look who's talking (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17216798)

How many sites use javascript links for basic navigation without providing a noscript link? Now you want these developers to do AJAX when they "don't know the slightest thing about being a web developer." and are obviously incapable of doing it correctly for a normal document?

It's you who are stupid for not acknowledging the problem.

Re:Now look who's talking (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17217562)

How many sites use javascript links for basic navigation without providing a noscript link?

Sorry, using noscript is just as clueless. Random example: middle-clicking on a link.

Now you want these developers to do AJAX

No, I don't. I'm merely replying to your statement that "AJAX is bullshit". Ajax is a perfectly good development technique, and doesn't mean that a site doesn't work when script is disabled.

Re:Now look who's talking (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17217864)

Random example: middle-clicking on a link.
It opens in a new tab like it should when browser.tabs.opentabfor.middleclick is set to true. Also nice of you to presume that we all use a mouse, it's almost like screenreaders and textmode browsers don't exist.

doesn't mean that a site doesn't work when script is disabled.
That wasn't the point, the point was that some developers have difficulty making a page function without script and AJAX is going to make the situation worse.

Re:Now look who's talking (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17217928)

It opens in a new tab like it should when browser.tabs.opentabfor.middleclick is set to true. Also nice of you to presume that we all use a mouse, it's almost like screenreaders and textmode browsers don't exist.

It's nice of you to presume that we all use Firefox. It's like almost like Opera, Konqueror, Safari, and Internet Explorer don't exist.

Re:Now look who's talking (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17217974)

It opens in a new tab

No it doesn't. You clearly missed my point. If you provide a JavaScript link and use <noscript> to give a proper link to browsers with JavaScript disabled, then, when you middle-click the link in a browser with JavaScript enabled , it breaks.

Using noscript is clueless. It tries to divide the world into people with JavaScript and people without, when the reality is that it's a continuum of partial support.

Also nice of you to presume that we all use a mouse

I didn't. Is English your first language? I don't know whether to cut you slack because of language difficulties or if you're just stupid.

That wasn't the point, the point was that some developers have difficulty making a page function without script and AJAX is going to make the situation worse.

The original intent behind the comment was clearly to equate Ajax with incompatibility - otherwise the "AJAX is bullshit" line wouldn't have been used.

Re:Now look who's talking (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17221296)

If you provide a JavaScript link and use noscript to give a proper link to browsers with JavaScript disabled, then, when you middle-click the link in a browser with JavaScript enabled , it breaks.

Bullshit!

Re:Look who's talking (0)

urbanradar (1001140) | more than 7 years ago | (#17216828)

You appear to be a bit disoriented. I didn't call anyone stupid, and nothing else in your post applies to me or any statements of mine either.

Or am I feeding a troll I haven't come across before, here? Hm.

Re:Look who's talking (0)

urbanradar (1001140) | more than 7 years ago | (#17216864)

Okay, sorry, *I* appear to be a bit disoriented. I somehow thought you were replying directly to me, and completely overlooked the actual post you were referring to.

Not sure whether that's a problem with Slashdot's experimental discussion system or with my lack of sleep. Ah well, my apologies!

Re:Look who's talking (1)

Nasarius (593729) | more than 7 years ago | (#17217510)

It's the system. They really need to work out a better way of displaying threads where the first post is hidden.

Re:Look who's talking (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 7 years ago | (#17218486)

They really need to work out a better way of displaying threads where the first post is hidden.

They already did, and it's called the quote button. If what you quote doesn't match the text it appears you're replying to, then readers will know that there's a hidden post in between.

Re:Look who's talking (1)

Claws Of Doom (721684) | more than 7 years ago | (#17221598)

It had me confused... spent a few minutes wondering how such an innocent post started such an AC choir. For me, it needs improving, if only because of that experience.

google web toolkit (0)

chroot_james (833654) | more than 7 years ago | (#17216670)

so much easier.

w/o java? (1)

remmelt (837671) | more than 7 years ago | (#17220532)

We don't have or want a Java back end. That would pretty much rule out either ZK or the GWT. right? What to do? So far, we've been programming a bunch in YUI, which is pretty nice because it's so extensible. Most other toolkits, especially scriptaculous (or scriptalicisousness or whatever, here's a couple of dots to spray in random spots in the url: .....) are nice and fast but not as extensible as YUI.

Ajax Hype (3, Interesting)

John Sokol (109591) | more than 7 years ago | (#17216702)

Oh man, I had written a chat room in back 1996 using what I called server push Java Script and nobody paid much attention, although it was on many adult video chat sites. Example at http://www.videotechnology.com/chatroom.html [videotechnology.com]

    We did many of the same things using that technique that people are doing now in Ajax, interactive games, and database etc using it.

  Suddenly some marketing guy calls it "Ajax", which is almost doing the same thing is all the rage.

Re:Ajax Hype (1)

Shados (741919) | more than 7 years ago | (#17216802)

10 years ago, the market was different. Plugins weren't shunned as much, keeping things lightweight wasn't as important (in the mind of developers...as its probably LESS important today, with the powerful machines we have and all), etc.

Now in this day and age, things like java applets and Flash get shoved aside, even if it actualy DOES make sense to use them in a given situation. Thus people being all over ajax.

Re:Ajax Hype (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17217366)

Plug-ins are often "shoved aside" so that the application will run in some of the strict corporate IT environments. A bunch of our customers (mostly banks) don't allow any plug-ins installed on their users' machines. We'd love to use flash instead of AJAX, but we're forced to use only features of the core browser.

Re:Ajax Hype (1)

AaronLawrence (600990) | more than 7 years ago | (#17218928)

That must be terrible. Forced to use those desperately restricted web browsers for banking applications. How can they manipulate their 3D bargraphs?

Re:Ajax Hype (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17230352)

You are just pushing the problem around, not solving it. A lot of corporate environments firewall off everything but 80. Solution? Shove everything down port 80. You can't install local applications or use plug-ins. Solution? Run everything in the browser. What happens when your customers realize that AJAX is essentially comparable to plug-ins or locally installed apps and turn off javascript everywhere? Some are doing this already.

Re:Ajax Hype (1)

complete loony (663508) | more than 7 years ago | (#17216912)

Heck I made a P2P presence system for the office using a Java applet, multicast packets, Javascript and DHTML some time around 2000. And that didn't have any server code at all.

This stuff isn't rocket surgery.

Re:Ajax Hype (1)

dheera (1003686) | more than 7 years ago | (#17217114)

Back then you could also accomplish this "Ajax" BS by just creating an IFRAME in your page and accessing its contents from its parent frame. It was nice and handy. I used it for a long time on webpages, until somebody figured out that you could use it to read contents from your visitor's hard drive too, resulting in the "bug" being corrected.

After that, so long as your content was rectangular, you could just use the IFRAME itself to accomplish the same effect as what Google does today with "Ajax" in a table.

Nothing new at all.

Re:Ajax Hype (1)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 7 years ago | (#17218998)

Back then you could also accomplish this "Ajax" BS by just creating an IFRAME in your page and accessing its contents from its parent frame.

Except that it didn't work in Netscape 4.x. Which was the big reason why it didn't take off back then.

(Yes, I pulled the IFrame trickery several times as well.)

Why does it have to be inline? (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 7 years ago | (#17219228)

Couldn't you just do a frameset with no borders and a single frame of 0 px?

Re:Why does it have to be inline? (1)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 7 years ago | (#17221594)

Couldn't you just do a frameset with no borders and a single frame of 0 px?

Not really. Netscape 4 couldn't make any changes to the document once it was rendered. Later versions allowed for some colors to be dynamically swapped, and for objects to be resized to reflow the page. But you couldn't actually add or subtract any information.

In my case, I had used the IFrame to show a list of selected items as the user checked them. The user could page through different weeks on a calendar, so it was important to tell them which dates they'd already selected. The data had to be inlined (according to the specs I was given; and not allowed to change) so I used an IFrame to do both the server upload and the display. There was some alternate logic in Netscape that would refresh the page instead.

Re:Ajax Hype (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17217850)

Oh man, I had written a chat room in back 1996 using what I called server push Java Script and nobody paid much attention, although it was on many adult video chat sites. Example at http://www.videotechnology.com/chatroom.html [videotechnology.com]

God damn it. You promised "adult video chat", but there wasn't any. Why would you do this to me? Why?

Re:Ajax Hype (1)

Slimnaper (971797) | more than 7 years ago | (#17217986)

When I first heard of Ajax, I thought something was strange. I even bought a book on it which confirmed what I thought, that Ajax was just describing a way to use some browser request object in the way we have always been using an invisible iframe. Looking back at my old code, my first 'Ajax' library was written in 1998 when I had to convert a client/server app to the web and make it behave like a client/server app. Everyone thought I was crazy back then, I always had to point to the new Peapod grocery shopping site as confirmation that I wasn't doing something crazy.

Re:Ajax Hype (1)

mattwarden (699984) | more than 7 years ago | (#17218252)

Lots of people were doing this. But there are a lot of factors that make it "all the rage", the least of which is the marketing term.

Re:Ajax Hype (1)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 7 years ago | (#17219276)

Oh man, I had written a chat room in back 1996 using what I called server push Java Script and nobody paid much attention...

1996? JavaScript was barely out and buggy and crashy up the wazoo.
     

Re:Ajax Hype (1)

SQL Error (16383) | more than 7 years ago | (#17219728)

I was doing this for an in-house app in 1998, and even then it would lock your browser up (or just plain crash it) after a few hours.

One of the major reasons AJAX is having success now is that it actually works - now.

Re:Ajax Hype (1)

John Sokol (109591) | more than 7 years ago | (#17220084)

>1996? JavaScript was barely out and buggy and crashy up the wazoo.

Yes it was. But we had it working fairly reliably overall. This was also working with my livecam server push jpeg video.

  www.livecamserver.com

  What's amazing is Microsoft deliberatly went out of there way to break the X-mixed-multipart we were using to get MS IE to play the video.

This article is moot (2, Insightful)

Timesprout (579035) | more than 7 years ago | (#17216718)

Now that Google has released GWT as open source. All the fanbois will rush to ajaxify their sites regardless of requirements, creating even greater mostrocities while all the time laughing at sites which are not sufficiently 'ajaxy'.

Then XAML and XUL will see greater adoption for rich client development and we return to the days when ajax was just a household cleaner.

Re:This article is moot (1)

not already in use (972294) | more than 7 years ago | (#17217452)

Yeah, haha, you're so right. I can't wait to revert to the days of "This site is viewable only in IE" or "This site is viewable only in Mozilla Firefox." God damn google, their open-sourcing bullshit, and the adoption of a tool kit that allows cleanly written ajax applications that are widely available on different browsers, hell even many legacy browsers. This isn't what we need right now. We need applications written using technology that is still years away from mass adoption! And of course, anyone who could be labeled a "fanboi" (you're clearly a fan of avril lavigne) would be smart enough to pick up java and convert their backend to servlets on the $5 a month LAMP packages without tomcat.

Re:This article is moot (1)

phaggood (690955) | more than 7 years ago | (#17232158)

>Yeah, haha, you're so right. I can't wait to revert to the days of "This site is viewable only in IE"

Tell me about it. I had to help my dad get some pics off of an MLS site for realtors (he's in real estate) and it said 'IE' only. I had to hit refresh a few times because I didn't believe it; what year is this?!?!

Re:This article is moot (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 7 years ago | (#17217918)

Ajax is all about transport, xaml and xul are mostly about widgets and layout. Much ongoing use of XMLHttpRequestObject(ajax without the buzz...) is to transfer json; why? because it is straightforward and tends to 'just work', without 'silly' overhead. Xaml and xul might offer local storage/caching, I don't know, but xaml and xul are to xml/html, not ajax.

Re:This article is moot (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 7 years ago | (#17219252)

True enough, but it always seemed to me that the biggest problems of AJAX was the HTML. Browser hacks, performance implications of quirks mode, browser hacks, performance implications of generating HTML from JavaScript and then parsing it for no good reason, and browser hacks.

I'd like to see the JavaScript go away, but it's at least theoretically possible to build an efficient JavaScript compiler/interpreter, and it is a damned powerful language. The problem is, HTML was designed to mark up web pages. It makes perfect sense when you're mostly using it for the hypertext effect -- just the occasional <a href>, or using <b> and <i> to essentially develop a page the way you'd do a word processing document.

It has no place in actual application development.

Re:This article is moot (1)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 7 years ago | (#17219290)

Now that Google has released GWT as open source. All the fanbois will rush to ajaxify their sites regardless of requirements, creating even greater mostrocities...

Good. It will take their mind off of trying to use every GOF OOP pattern in the book just for the hell of it.
   

Too Sloanie (1)

dheera (1003686) | more than 7 years ago | (#17216922)

"Ajax" is just another hype word. It's like how management types run around their companies saying BS like: "employ XML" "facilitate collaboration" "empowering innovators" "strategic thinkers" blah blah blah. it's so much crap. "HTML" was something new. It DID stuff. You wrote and you SAW it on the screen. "JavaScript" was something new. It did all kinds of stuff to make webpages dynamic and functional in new ways. "DHTML" is a craptastic synonym of "HTML with JavaScript" "XML" is utter crap. Try double-clicking a .xml file on your computer and see if anything happens. Then try double-clicking a .html file and tell me which got you to information faster. Don't tell me XML is some revolutionary standard BS, it's like saying "we redefined the .ini" file. For god's sake shut up about XML being anything new. It doesn't do anything. "Ajax" is another crap term. It's management majors realizing after so long that "WHAA! We have XMLHttpRequest in our JavaScript specification? WOW! WOW WOW WOW we have to come up with a new name for it! It's so great we can't just call it JavaScript!" argh.

Re:Too Sloanie (1)

dheera (1003686) | more than 7 years ago | (#17216966)

And by that I was not saying I hate "Ajax". It's a cool technology, just a stupid name. It's just JavaScript, nothing ever changed. Sites accomplished the same effect for years using IFRAME's, and JavaScript just came out with a nice handy function to simplify things. It's called JavaScript, dummies. JavaScript. Not "Ajax".

Don't tell me tomorrow that you're going to realize that JavaScript has a window resizing feature, say "wow wow wow" again, and decide as a management guy that it has to be called "Awacs" (Asynchronous Window Annoying Changing System). It's called JavaScript, dummy.

It's a cool technology? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17219034)

As a user, I have never had a need for Javascript, or any active content. HTML is fine.

Can you give some examples of how Javascript actually benefits the user, as opposed to how it strokes the various itches of the website developer?

Why is it a "cool technology"?

Re:Too Sloanie (1)

Hawkxor (693408) | more than 7 years ago | (#17217888)

you do realize "Sloanie" doesn't make any sense outside of cambridge right?

Re:Too Sloanie (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17220076)

heh, i was just wondering about what that meant

Hypes (1, Interesting)

El Lobo (994537) | more than 7 years ago | (#17216948)

Once every2-3 years it seems like "the new big thing" is hyped. Call it Java, ASP, php, Ajax... The enterprise world is then ready to show you that the curent hype is the Holy Grail and the best thing since a cold beer.

Ajax is getting hyped to the point where it isn't funny anymore. I bet it will go the way of XML - simple and interesting at first, then the "Enterprise" folk run away with it and within 2 years we have W3C AJAX standards that span 1000 pages. Wanna bet?

Rich Client Demand (1)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 7 years ago | (#17219320)

Once every2-3 years it seems like "the new big thing" is hyped. Call it Java, ASP, php, Ajax... The enterprise world is then ready to show you that the curent hype is the Holy Grail and the best thing since a cold beer. Ajax is getting hyped to the point where it isn't funny anymore.

Part of it is driven by the desire to have "rich GUI" apps that work like and have the features of desktop app GUI's. The world is wanting. Wether AJAX can deliver that or not is another matter. Getting HTML to act like a desktop is like trying to lick your own a$$.

Re:Hypes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17220610)

Bet? You're on.

Why would you implement AJAX? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17216972)

Why would you ever want to implement AJAX yourself? Hasn't someone else already implemented it? Talk about re-inventing the wheel!

AJAX's hatred of the middle-click. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17217166)

With Firefox and Opera, one is able to open a link in a new tab by middle clicking on it. But unfortunately, many AJAX-enabled Web apps disallow such functionality, for whatever reason.

GMail is a major culprit. Being able to open a number of messages simultaneously is essential. For some of my open source development, I have to refer to information from five or six different emails at times. This is something I can easily do with Thunderbird, but not with GMail. It's such an essential functionality that I had to stop using the AJAX-enabled Web interface to GMail, and instead switched back to their non-AJAX version.

GMail isn't the only AJAX site that I've had such problems with. Basically every AJAX site I've tried has interfered some way with traditional ways of browsing. I don't know if it's an inherent limitation with AJAX, or just how those particular apps are designed. Regardless, I see little benefit in using these AJAX sites when they fail to properly deal with opening links in new windows or tabs. It's such a basic functionality, there's no excuse for such support to either be disabled or just plain not exist.

Re:AJAX's hatred of the middle-click. (3, Informative)

Bogtha (906264) | more than 7 years ago | (#17217642)

With Firefox and Opera, one is able to open a link in a new tab by middle clicking on it. But unfortunately, many AJAX-enabled Web apps disallow such functionality, for whatever reason.

It's not Ajax per se that disallows it. The problem is that a lot of developers use <a href="#" onclick="..."> and don't provide an actual URI to open.

GMail is a major culprit.

Yes, it is, and I've said as much in the past. It's actually even worse than the average clueless developer, because it doesn't even use <a> for links - it uses <span> and click handlers to provide really, really crappy emulated links. Of course, doing so immediately throws the normal link handling your web browser provides out the window, including (but not limited to) opening them in new tabs or windows.

Basically every AJAX site I've tried has interfered some way with traditional ways of browsing. I don't know if it's an inherent limitation with AJAX

It's not. It's usually either developer ignorance or developer apathy - they either don't know how to do it or they don't care.

You can right-click on Gmail (1)

Walter Carver (973233) | more than 7 years ago | (#17223796)

If you don't mind losing some of the Ajax functionality, you can switch to "basic HTML format"; it's a link at the bottom of the page. It will now behave a lot more Yahoo webmail.

Re:AJAX's hatred of the middle-click. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17217746)

Gmail allows you to open messages into separate popup windows (click the popup icon thingie.) I use it all the time and it does this very well. It's better than opening the entire page into another window.

Re:AJAX's hatred of the middle-click. (1)

amRadioHed (463061) | more than 7 years ago | (#17231566)

With Firefox and Opera, one is able to open a link in a new tab by middle clicking on it. But unfortunately, many AJAX-enabled Web apps disallow such functionality, for whatever reason.

GMail is a major culprit. Being able to open a number of messages simultaneously is essential....


I've had that problem with some AJAX pages too, thought it only rarely bothers me in gmail. Flash sites have the same problem, and I actually am annoyed by it in them way more than in the AJAX ones.

And for viewing multiple gmail messages at a time, did you try the open in a separate window button? It works even thought it isn't tabs. Either that or you can go through the unwieldy process of opening a message, copy the URI, past into a new tab, go back to first tab, repeat....

Ajax is no easy substitute for good design (4, Insightful)

EraserMouseMan (847479) | more than 7 years ago | (#17217242)

The thing that made AJAX catch on is that a few of the very first notable web apps were very heavy on graphic design and well-thought-out layout.

So now everybody thinks that if their website can just be written with AJAX technology it will automatically come with a smooth, user-friendly and beautiful interface.

AJAX is just one technique. You still need to be highly skilled at all the other web-coding disciplines else to end up with a great web app.

It Makes Sense (1)

dteichman2 (841599) | more than 7 years ago | (#17217538)

AJAX makes sense wherever the app should be interactive or realtime (relating to server-side data). Keep in mind, that a non-AJAX, plain HTML version should be kept as an option for all users.

Re:It Makes Sense (1)

mattwarden (699984) | more than 7 years ago | (#17218278)

When AJAX is most useful and appropriate, offering a plain HTML option is not useful and potentially impossible.

Re:It Makes Sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17219816)

You should in fact, simply specify how your application should look and how it should interact with the user, and leave it to your toolkits to bother with technologies that may be or not be supported by the browser, or if not available revert to simple plain HTML.

Unfortunately, using Dojo, GWT, or echo2, or JSF, or any of these 'AJAX' toolkits naturally rely on AJAX being there all the time, requiring the developers to manually maintain backwards compatability when AJAX is not present or enabled. Sad ?

Tool sites (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17217598)

Content creation sites benefit the most - sites where you're using web-based tools to create or manipulate content or layout. This would include sites like gmail, blogger and deviantart. Ajax is nearly useless for browsing. I thought it was cool for about 5 seconds on Digg... until I realized how much clicking you had to do just to read a page.

Cutting through the ajax hype-hype (2, Interesting)

not already in use (972294) | more than 7 years ago | (#17217632)

Whenever a great technology comes about (or in this case a fusion of existing technologies) you always have the people who gotta play devils advocate, you know, the guy nobody likes to hang out with because he's negative about everything. Here's one of my favorite parts FTA:

"Last month, I was on my way to visit a friend. It was dark and I got lost, and I tried to find his address in my computer. His coordinates were included in the e-mail he sent me that day. Unluckily for me, that e-mail message was sent to my GMail account, and, being disconnected from the Internet, I was left with quite a negative experience. In one split second, all the benefits of zero-install, a cool UI, labels, free targeted advertisements, an extremely useful search engine, and platform independence were annihilated when I could not find my friend's address because I was out of range of a Wi-Fi hotspot."

GOD DAMN YOU AJAX, CLEARLY YOU HAVE NO COMPASSION FOR THE ILL-PREPARED!! This would have never happened had you been using a non-ajax internet mail application, or even GMail's HTML only version. Ajax isn't only overhyped, it's out to get you. Here's another great snippet:

"JavaScript applications run in a browser, and can be easily reengineered. By loading JavaScript files on demand, you can fool Internet Explorer users; but other browsers, such as Firefox, will eagerly show a user the current DOM in its entirety through the context menu's View Selection Source option. If someone really wants to see your application's entire JavaScript source and analyze it, a simple script built with the Mozilla® Greasemonkey extension, a debugger like Venkman, or a custom Internet Explorer toolbar would do the trick."

Yes folks, he is correct here. Ever since ajax has come about, all the sudden your javascript and DOM is viewable to anyone with enough inclination to do the digging. Before "Asynchronous" and "and XML" came along, this certainly wasn't the case, I liked the good ol' days when it was just "J."

I could go on and about the evils of ajax, but what I would really like to point out, as this guy already has, is that the heart of this evil scourge is the internet itself. Never mind the fact that any 16 year-old girl going to meet a sexual predator on mySpace has the capacity to print a map out before hand because clearly, the intarweb will no longer be available once she has departed on her journey. But thats beside the point. Uninstall your browsers immediatly.

super hyperbolic hyperbole (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17219936)

Let me correct that title for you:

Cutting through the ajax meta hype

Re:Cutting through the ajax hype-hype (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17223112)

[tears of pride and joy flowing]

Thank you, sir, for saying it like it is.

Now - re-read that rant with the "Star Spangled Banner" playing in your head - even better.

w0000t!

The Answer is a Framework (1)

Chabil Ha' (875116) | more than 7 years ago | (#17217682)

Frameworks help decouple a lot of things. For example, instead of using M$ 'Atlas' Ajax framework which is not only a bugger to use but introduces a lot of unnecessary coupling, I use Anthem.NET [sourceforge.net] . It takes the existing ASP.NET form tags and extends them. This produces 3 net effects: 1) I don't have to do the crap load of mundane javascript coding (Anthem.Net takes care of that), 2) Should javascript functionality be disabled on the client, the form objects revert back to their regular POST behavior (because of inheritance), and 3) Should I wish to strip out my AJAX functionality there are a lot less dependencies in my code.

If you go the Atlas route, you're looking for a load of trouble in any of those three scenarios.

Re:The Answer is a Framework (2, Informative)

Shados (741919) | more than 7 years ago | (#17217822)

Hmm...did I miss something? While Atlas does add quite a bit of features, if you're sticking to ajax functionalities, 1, 2, and 3 are handled quite gracefully... For example, my sites that use Atlas's ajax functionalities degrade perfectly to normal post behaviors if javascript is disabled.

BULLSHIT!!! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17217728)

BULLSHIT!!!

You mean there's something behind the hype? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17217948)

I couldn't see anything through all the hype. I just assumed AJAX was the new dot bomb and left it alone. This article does a good job of telling me exactly what AJAX has to offer without all the meaningless promises.

Is this relevant? (2, Insightful)

romit_icarus (613431) | more than 7 years ago | (#17219156)

Last month, I was on my way to visit a friend. It was dark and I got lost, and I tried to find his address in my computer. His coordinates were included in the e-mail he sent me that day. Unluckily for me, that e-mail message was sent to my GMail account, and, being disconnected from the Internet, I was left with quite a negative experience. In one split second, all the benefits of zero-install, a cool UI, labels, free targeted advertisements, an extremely useful search engine, and platform independence were annihilated when I could not find my friend's address because I was out of range of a Wi-Fi hotspot.

No - you couldn't find your address because you were stupid enough not to jot it down on a piece of paper when you had the chance. Seriously, blaming GMail for not being able to access data locally is asking a bit too much of the Internet, le talone of Ajax!

Re:Is this relevant? (1)

BritneySP2 (870776) | more than 7 years ago | (#17227856)

stupid enough not to jot it down on a piece of paper

Paper? Why use paper when you have a computer. Just wondering. Unless, it's a toilet paper, of course - nothing can replace that.

"Myspace Passes Yahoo in Pageviews..." (1)

robogun (466062) | more than 7 years ago | (#17226306)

And the reason is, to quote from the article: [cnn.com]

"Yahoo continues to be the overall Web audience leader with the largest number of unique users and most time spent online. The page view change in November is related to the use of Ajax and other Web 2.0 technologies across the Yahoo network," Yahoo spokeswoman Nissa Anklesaria said Tuesday.

So forget about Ajax if metrics mean anything to your bottom line. BTW, Ajax is making Yahoo a pain in the ass. All those little "helpful" popup balloon are just killing me and there's no way to turn it off.
Check for New 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...