This is a bare assertion. The same thing can be (has been) said about every programming language, ever.
> the entire stack is more less broken.
This is another bare assertion.
> HTML and CSS got repurposed from document markup languages to GUI markup languages.
This is a red herring. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with the evolution of markup to encompass more layout capabilities.
> We allowed this awful language to escape the browser and infiltrate our servers in form of Node.js.
Another red herring. Node.js exists. Nobody is forcing you to use it. It's being used successfully by quite a few folks. Furthermore, it was Netscape (the originators of the language) who originally introduced server-side JavaScript. SSJS has been around in various forms almost ever since there was JS.
> Microsoft also came up with the clever idea to develop desktop applications and apps with JavaScript, HTML and CSS.
They were certainly not the first. The trend started, I believe, with Mozilla's XUL architecture, evolved through things like Lazslo, and is steadily moving towards web components. This trend has been going on for a decade; even in enterprise Java land things like Struts and JSF got on the application markup bandwagon. Quite simply, markup has proven to be a good way to lay out interfaces.
> develop once, run everywhere - is far less true then many like to admit.
There are inconsistencies, true, but there is really no other stack that has achieved as much cross compatibility as the web stack.
> In the past a substantial part of development time has been spent on getting the thing to run consistently across browsers but I fear we are far from the end of the road.
This is somewhat of a "slippery slope" fallacy: 'There were problems in the past, so I fear there will be problems in the future, therefore we shouldn't solve the problems and the whole thing is crap...'. It doesn't hold together.
> Now we have more or less consistent behavior across browser for all the basic things
Which is incredibly powerful and frankly unprecedented.
> but you still regularly run into unusable web application because you happen to have an unexpected screen aspect ratio, an unsupported video codec or missing WebGL support.
Very rarely. For experimental new apps yes. But when you look at what projects like Clara.io have accomplished, they have blown away the preconceptions that the web is not suitable for things like high-end 3D graphics development.
> Unfortunately I have no good suggestion how to escape from that situation (quickly) but it seems pretty obvious to me that we have a lot of problems to solve.
Let me make a suggestion then. Contribute to solving the remaining problems instead of berating the technology, or if you manage to find a better alternative, write about that instead.
This is a bare assertion. The same thing can be (has been) said about every programming language, ever.
This is just not true. You can always find someone not liking a language but if you asked people that have used many different languages they can of course rank them from worst to best. And although I am not ad hoc aware of any study demonstrating this I also never met any developer seriously suggesting that JavaScript would rank on top of that list.
> the entire stack is more less broken.
This is another bare assertion.
This is obviously my opinion and I assume everybody is able to mentally add IMO somewhere.
> HTML and CSS got repurposed from document markup languages to GUI markup languages.
This is a red herring. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with the evolution of markup to encompass more layout capabilities.
If table based layouts or hundreds of wrapper DIVs are not a sign that the underlying technology is not suitable for the task then I don't know what is.
> We allowed this awful language to escape the browser and infiltrate our servers in form of Node.js.
Another red herring. Node.js exists. Nobody is forcing you to use it. It's being used successfully by quite a few folks.
That somebody uses it successfully does not make it a wise decision to use one of the worser languages in a place where you are - unlike in a browsers - not forced to do it. And don't get me wrong, everybody is free to use whatever they like, I just want to point out that there are better options. You can use a screwdriver to drive a nail into a board, I won't stop you, I just want to suggest to at least consider getting a hammer.
> Microsoft also came up with the clever idea to develop desktop applications and apps with JavaScript, HTML and CSS.
The were certainly not the first. The trend started, I believe, with Mozilla's XUL architecture, evolved through things like Lazslo, and is steadily moving towards web components. This trend has been going on for a decade; even in enterprise Java land things like Struts and JSF got on the application markup bandwagon. Quite simply, markup has proven to be a good way to lay out interfaces.
I completely agree that using a markup language is a good way to build GUIs, the bad idea is using HTML and CSS for that because they were not intended for this and are not really up to the task.
> develop once, run everywhere - is far less true then many like to admit.
There are inconsistencies, true, but there is really no other stack that has achieved as much cross compatibility as the web stack.
I completely agree with that, but this should really not imply we should stick with JavaScript, HTML and CSS. We can do way better and we should do so.
> In the past a substantial part of development time has been spent on getting the thing to run consistently across browsers but I fear we are far from the end of the road.
This is somewhat of a "slipper slope" fallacy. There were problems in the past, so I fear there will be problems in the future, therefore we shouldn't solve the problems and the whole thing is crap.
No, we should of course fix the problems, but I believe we should at least think about fixing them at the fundamental level instead of keeping patching the holes. The obvious problem is of course the adoption of a better replacement and that is why I am not sure if and how this could happen.
> Now we have more or less consistent behavior across browser for all the basic things
Which is incredibly powerful and frankly unprecedented.
> but you still regularly run into unusable web application because you happen to have an unexpected screen aspect ratio, an unsupported video codec or missing WebGL support.
Very rarely. For experimental new apps yes. But when you look at what projects like Clara.io have accomplished, they have blown away the preconceptions that the web is not suitable for things like high-end 3D graphics development.
My point here is that people quite often try to suggest that portability is kind of a unique feature and essentially for free with the web stack which is not true. A simple program is really easy to write in a cross-platform manner in most languages. Then there is a range of applications where the web stack is exceptionally good for building cross-platform applications with very little overhead. At the upper end it again becomes hard and costs effort to get it working across platforms.
> Unfortunately I have no good suggestion how to escape from that situation (quickly) but it seems pretty obvious to me that we have a lot of problems to solve.
Let me make a suggestion then. Contribute to solving the remaining problems instead of berating the technology, or if you manage to find a better alternative, write about that instead.
As another commenter pointed out, we know how to build better solutions. What we don't really know is how to get adoption for it.
>This is just not true. You can always find someone not liking a language but if you asked people that have used many different languages they can of course rank them from worst to best. And although I am not ad hoc aware of any study demonstrating this I also never met any developer seriously suggesting that JavaScript would rank on top of that list.
So because it's not number one it's an "awful language"? That doesn't make any sense and I know plenty of people who enjoy working with javascript. In fact the few people I do know who hate JS are people who haven't done more than copy/paste code from stackoverflow.
Firstly, just because someone makes a compile-to-js language doesn't mean they ncesserily "hate" JS ... I mean, it may, but it could also very well mean that they prefer their own language instead of JS, but not hate JS per say.
Also, compare this to the number of people who are just using JS normally worldwide, then we'll have perspective of just how many more people are just fine with JS Vs the people who feel the need to make these.
My guess would be that the number of people who like JS and use just normal JS in their projects is far far greater in number than the people who use compile-to-js solutions. So in comparision to the former, the latter group could be called as 'few'.
You can not count people only knowing JavaScript because most of them are probably not even aware how bad JavaScript is because they never used anything else.
> JavaScript is an awful language
This is a bare assertion. The same thing can be (has been) said about every programming language, ever.
> the entire stack is more less broken.
This is another bare assertion.
> HTML and CSS got repurposed from document markup languages to GUI markup languages.
This is a red herring. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with the evolution of markup to encompass more layout capabilities.
> We allowed this awful language to escape the browser and infiltrate our servers in form of Node.js.
Another red herring. Node.js exists. Nobody is forcing you to use it. It's being used successfully by quite a few folks. Furthermore, it was Netscape (the originators of the language) who originally introduced server-side JavaScript. SSJS has been around in various forms almost ever since there was JS.
> Microsoft also came up with the clever idea to develop desktop applications and apps with JavaScript, HTML and CSS.
They were certainly not the first. The trend started, I believe, with Mozilla's XUL architecture, evolved through things like Lazslo, and is steadily moving towards web components. This trend has been going on for a decade; even in enterprise Java land things like Struts and JSF got on the application markup bandwagon. Quite simply, markup has proven to be a good way to lay out interfaces.
> develop once, run everywhere - is far less true then many like to admit.
There are inconsistencies, true, but there is really no other stack that has achieved as much cross compatibility as the web stack.
> In the past a substantial part of development time has been spent on getting the thing to run consistently across browsers but I fear we are far from the end of the road.
This is somewhat of a "slippery slope" fallacy: 'There were problems in the past, so I fear there will be problems in the future, therefore we shouldn't solve the problems and the whole thing is crap...'. It doesn't hold together.
> Now we have more or less consistent behavior across browser for all the basic things
Which is incredibly powerful and frankly unprecedented.
> but you still regularly run into unusable web application because you happen to have an unexpected screen aspect ratio, an unsupported video codec or missing WebGL support.
Very rarely. For experimental new apps yes. But when you look at what projects like Clara.io have accomplished, they have blown away the preconceptions that the web is not suitable for things like high-end 3D graphics development.
> Unfortunately I have no good suggestion how to escape from that situation (quickly) but it seems pretty obvious to me that we have a lot of problems to solve.
Let me make a suggestion then. Contribute to solving the remaining problems instead of berating the technology, or if you manage to find a better alternative, write about that instead.