08 Oct, 2011, Runter wrote in the 121st comment:
Votes: 0
Quote
I guess perhaps one could see it ecologically. There should be enough competition that a few individuals don't dictate too much power (over standards etc) that the developer is handicapped but at the same time there isn't too much "polyglot" so that the developer community becomes too fragmented.


I think that's right, but I don't believe we are anywhere near fragmentation. I think the competition that does exist right now among well known languages is healthy. The communities challenge each other, and more times than not the challenge are met. I don't think there's any evidence that things would be better if there were less similar tools. It's not like there's a lack of manpower or strong personalities in any of these communities. I think merging them at gun point, or artificially, would result in benching a lot of great minds.
09 Oct, 2011, Tyche wrote in the 122nd comment:
Votes: 0
Twisol said:
Tyche said:
Yeah but we already can write web client applications entirely in C#, VB, Python, Ruby, F#, Pascal, Java, JavaScript, and several other languages.

Only two of those are directly supported by the browser. Did you mean web applications on the server?

No. If I had meant web server applications, I probably would have listed languages you couldn't use, like ToonTalk, interactive Logo, etc.
09 Oct, 2011, Twisol wrote in the 123rd comment:
Votes: 0
Fair enough.
Twisol said:
Tyche said:
Yeah but we already can write web client applications entirely in C#, VB, Python, Ruby, F#, Pascal, Java, JavaScript, and several other languages.

Only two of those are directly supported by the browser.
10 Oct, 2011, Tyche wrote in the 124th comment:
Votes: 0
Twisol said:
Fair enough.
Twisol said:
Tyche said:
Yeah but we already can write web client applications entirely in C#, VB, Python, Ruby, F#, Pascal, Java, JavaScript, and several other languages.

Only two of those are directly supported by the browser.

On the one hand we've got certain developers (blind ones?) wishing for alternatives.
Perhaps they are praying that someone will create tools to translate their language into the slower running Javascript.
On the other hand we've got hundreds of thousands of developers already doing it because the browser does support it.
10 Oct, 2011, Twisol wrote in the 125th comment:
Votes: 0
No, really. How do you run Ruby or Python in the browser? C#, F#, etc. I might understand if you use Silverlight. Java comes with the JVM. These are both plugins though.

Show me this browser that runs Ruby or Python scripts directly. I want to use it.
10 Oct, 2011, oenone wrote in the 126th comment:
Votes: 0
With Google Chrome, you can now execute native code ;)
11 Oct, 2011, Tyche wrote in the 127th comment:
Votes: 0
Twisol said:
No, really. How do you run Ruby or Python in the browser? C#, F#, etc. I might understand if you use Silverlight. Java comes with the JVM. These are both plugins though.

Show me this browser that runs Ruby or Python scripts directly. I want to use it.


Every modern desktop browser supports this. And a good number of small device browsers do as well.
Yes I'm clearly talking about virtual machines embedded in browsers.
"Browser plugins to facilitate other execution technology have a very bright future. "

oenone said:
With Google Chrome, you can now execute native code ;)


Yes! Embed your favorite mud client in a broswer plugin.
Browser tech has always gone well beyond the "standard".
The Tamarin VM, JRE, CLR/DLR are de facto standards.
11 Oct, 2011, David Haley wrote in the 128th comment:
Votes: 0
Tyche said:
Yes I'm clearly talking about virtual machines embedded in browsers.



:thinking:
120.0/128