"Java applets were introduced in the first version of the Java language in 1995"
Remember, why Javascript is called Javascript. So it wouldn't be seen as competing with Java as "the language of the web".
Java, and its VM was designed for the web. To run in a browser. It was given every conceivable chance, and it utterly failed because ultimately, it's fundamentally a terrible idea. But somehow fellows like you are too headcopped to see history for what it is, and you are doomed to repeat it.
I remember when most developers would be surprised if you told them you could make programs in Java that are not applets. And java had a reputation for being "that really shitty slow painful web language"
September 18, 1995: Netscape 2.0 released with Java and Javascript support. This has the DOM level 0-. Java is marketed as the language for "Big boy apps" and javascript is merely the scripting "glue" that lets java access DOM level 0, which is limited really only to reading form data and changing the .src attribute on some images. [1]
1998: "The initial DOM standard, known as "DOM Level 1," was recommended by W3C in late 1998. About the same time, Internet Explorer 5.0 shipped with limited support for DOM Level 1. DOM Level 1 provided a complete model for an entire HTML or XML document, including means to change any portion of the document. Non-conformant browsers such as Internet Explorer 4.x and Netscape 4.x were still widely used as late as 2000." [2]
August 2001: Internet Explorer 6 is released with still " and partial support of DOM level 1" [3]
in the same month (August 2001) Netscape 6.1 is released [1]
netscape 6 was the first Netscape browser based on the "Mozilla Application Suite", what Firefox is based on today. It's hard to find detailed information on this, but I would also guess that Netscape 6 had "Partial Support" for DOM Level 1
February 6, 2002 (6 months later): Java's J2SE 1.4 runtime is released, and has, again, Partial DOM level 1 support, along with the ability to directly manipulate the page that an applet is on without using Javascript as "glue"
Which of course is the whole point of the DOM, as a "language agnostic" API that needed to be used from not just Javascript, but Java, C++, and VBScript and whatever other language.
It was, to be fair, shitty, but we are talking, at this time, 2002, people are using IE6 and netscape 4 still. Browser support for DOM matured around 2006, and so did Java and its applets, keeping pace right along with the browsers. People generally don't really understand that Java and Javascript are two seperate languages. It's all just "Java, that really shitty slow web language"
I'm not sure what you're trying to prove; javascript runtimes are VMs too.
Java was designed poorly, and it performed poorly. It just so happens that its design was well-suited to long-running servers, however, so that's where it's used.
It is not a VM that accepts binary bytecode as input, which is what the person I am replying to wanted. Context matters. And you could have read that yourself.-
Edit to respond to ninja edit:
One could argue quite successfully that one of the chief reasons Java (applets) in a browser is a bad design is because of its "standardised" bytecode format, which is what everyone in this discussion thread is screaming for. My point is: Look we've already done this. Twice in fact, because flash works the same way, and does it much better than Java ever did. And yet, it's still a failed concept in both cases. Flash was able to get by better by virtue of having a monopoly instead of a standard, and thus, has the freedom to change its swf format and bytecode format.
> It is not a VM that accepts binary bytecode as input, which is what the person I am replying to wanted. Context matters. And you could have read that yourself.-
Er, so?
> One could argue quite successfully that one of the chief reasons Java (applets) in a browser is a bad design is because of its "standardised" bytecode format, which is what everyone in this discussion thread is screaming for.
Then please, reasonably argue it. I don't understand how the argument applies.
Java applets perform poorly in the browser for a number of reasons, none of which have anything to do with bytecode:
- Java's generational GC is designed around reserving a very large chunk of RAM, and performs poorly if insufficient RAM is reserved. This is a terrible idea for desktop software.
- Java's sandboxing model is broken and insecure, as it exposes an enormous amount of code as an attack surface. A bug in just about any piece of code in the trusted base libraries can result in a total sandbox compromise.
- Java is slow to start and slow to warm up, and applets more so. It historically ran single-threaded in the browser and blocked execution as it did start up.
- Swing does look native, and doesn't look like the web page, either. Applets can't actually interface with the remainder of the DOM in any integrated fashion (eg, you can't have a Java applet provide a DOM element or directly interface with JS/DOM except through bridging), so applets are odd-men-out for both the platform, and the website they're on.
> Flash was able to get by better by virtue of having a monopoly instead of a standard, and thus, has the freedom to change its swf format and bytecode format.
That doesn't even make sense. Flash was better because it didn't lock up your browser when an applet started, and didn't consume huge amounts of RAM due to a GC architecture that was poorly suited to running on user desktops.
Flash sucked because of its extremely poor implementation and runtime library design.
Actually I missed this before. Javascript runtimes are /not/ VMs- I don't think I've ever seen a javascript engine use a virtual machine. Ever. Do you have evidence of this? (unless you mean in the sense that asm.js is treating the javascript runtime, as though it were a VM)
Basically it comes down to this: It's easier and way more efficient to secure an untrusted program using a language grammar rather than a "bytecode verifier"
and a few other things.
I saw your post before you deleted it. I didn't get a chance to respond before. I just wanted to say that you probably know a lot more about VM's than I do, and I'll concede that. I don't really know for sure whether switching to a bytecode vm would be great or not for the browser. I know that doing /any/ change to "the web" is a huge uphill battle, and so the ecmascript committee has to make a lot of comprimises for pragmatism. In any case, worse is better, and in the real world we can't have the perfect computer system. Haven't you seen tron legacy?
