I stopped reading when he started calling JavaScript, BrowserScript. The entire article was in a huge font, on my 1080p screen it was difficult to read.

Technically, he wasn't calling JavaScript "BrowserScript", but instead using "BrowserScript" as overly-clever newly-minted jargon for client-side code in general, independent of language. Still, both that usage and the stated reason for it were pretty poorly conceived and distracting.

"overly-clever"? Not sure about that... BrowserScript seemed to fit. I didn't expect to get whipped that much over it. Maybe I'll just change it back to JavaScript and add a note that this can be applied to any other browser side language. I don't quite see what the big fuss is though, to be honest.

You got farther than me. My entire browser window was filled with a headline and a background image, so I just moved on.

I'm glad I wasn't the only one that needed a few seconds to understand what was going on. I didn't bother reading it.

This fullpage image + small amount of text is a fad it will pass just as scrolling text went away in the 90s and "intro" pages when away in 00s (god i feel old)

In this case the background image adds absolutely nothing to the user experience or conveys what the content is about, if anything its quite an example of bad design and interferes with the user for no good reason! The "web developer" has added it just because he could not because there is any good and thought out reason to use this "image page monstrocity"

I'm sorry you feel that way.

This is my personal website. I also use it to showcase my photographs. I agree that they don't add anything to the content.

The people who started this comment thread claim to have skipped your content so they could critique everything else. I wouldn't take it too seriously. I found your content cleanly presented and interesting.

Thank you.

Then its ok :)

Its just funny seeing same mistakes being repeated and various "trends" employed by web developers for no good reason other than "because we can, and it looks cool", but thats ok for personal projects since you are exploring what can be done.

In my opinion, Dart is the first browser side language, that has any possibility of changing this monopoly. I don't think that it's a good thing that JavaScript is the only language you get in the browser, but that has nothing to do with dogma (I coded a lot in JavaScript, and it has it's place).

As stated below, I will probably remove this Introduction, since it seems to distract from what this article is about. I hope you consider reading the article anyway.

When you put "Google" in a sentence with Dart, "Monopoly" starts to sound different. I read your sentence as :

"Google is changing the monopoly of JavaScript by implementing the Dart VM in their own browser."

As far as I know community doesn't care much about Dart [1] and they are concentrating on further enhancement on ECMAScript.

[1] : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dart_%28programming_language%29...

Does this impact your opinion at all?

http://news.dartlang.org/2013/12/ecma-forms-tc52-for-dart-st...

Yep, but that doesn't mean much.

You can take a look at :

http://www.infoworld.com/article/2608454/web-development/goo...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dart_%28programming_language%2...

Glad its happen tbh I hate JS and so do many others. Its a fact JS is slowing down the web.

What's the problem? Wouldn't be better to have other choices? I think monopoly is never a good thing, especially for software.

It's not a question of whether it'd be "better" or not, it's a question of whether it's actually going to happen.

Do you _honestly_ believe Dart is going to replace or threaten Javascript "very soon"? Enough to be willing to bet on that?

I thought it was more a hope than a speculation.

Past 10 years I saw many statements that "technology X will be soon dead". Most of those Xs are still alive and in good shapes.

You are very mistaken if you think that I wish for JavaScript to die. It is neither my wish nor my forecast. I just hope that other languages will make it into the browser at one time.

Other languages have made it into the browser, in much the same way that other languages than raw machine code have made it into computers in general.

JS is the common compilation target of the web, and also happens to be a language that many programmers find tolerable enough to use directly.

As nice as it is to have multiple options of source languages for the web, there's a lot less value in having multiple options for compilation targets, as well as greater costs (particularly given how tied execution engines are to browser engines, so that you really need a separate engine for each compilation target for each browser engine. Having a reliable, good-enough cross-browser target language that is a the intersection of the JS supported by each browser engine is easier than doing that same thing for multiple different target languages.

A new target language is going to have to offer really compelling improvements in execution to make sense to compete with JS in that role on the web.

The problem is confusing wishes with facts.

You have a problem with my username? ;)

EDIT: OK, I see, he misspelled it...

If I need to explain a joke, it probably wasn't very funny. I'll walk away from this one. This is just to say it was nothing to do with your username.

Just for info: I understood your joke, I just made my own on top of it. :)