If we spent all the effort we used up on making JavaScript work on Java instead, I’d be typing this from my Moon habitat.
But we instead chose a pig, buried it under layers of lipstick, and strapped a jet engine onto it. Sure, it’s airworthy, but was it the best way to allocate resources?
I wouldn't say we chose a pig and buried it under layers of lipstick. I think it's more accurate to say people realized:
1) You could deliver software via a browser with some clever hacking
2) That delivering software via a browser had some extremely attractive properties compared to other approaches
Those clever hacks turned into real applications and those became real products. As people built applications on top of browsers, the browsers evolved to be a better environment for building applications. It was very organic.
The actual language we ended up using is just a byproduct IMO. I don't think people chose JavaScript, they chose the browser and the browser had JavaScript. And since the browser had JavaScript, we kept pushing the limits of JavaScript because we needed to deliver applications to the browser.
Honestly hard to see this happening efficiently in any other way. All things considered, the web platform is pretty fantastic compared to the software distribution story in every other ecosystem. I'd argue that we allocated resources pretty well on this one!
I didn't miss them - I don't have fond memories of them as either a user or a developer. But you're right, they were there. Which is interesting: Java Applets were available from close to day one right along side JavaScript, and yet...
There are two use cases for the web. There is the document web and the application web. Both are equally valid. It is absolutely an application platform, as evidence by the fact people use it to deliver applications. An ever increasing percentage of desktop software is moving to the browser, to the point where many users only need a web browser. I'd argue the only reason mobile hasn't followed suite is the non-market forces behind the app store model.
It is one of the best application platforms for both users and developers. I can write my software exactly one time and it will run on every platform, instead of separate applications for Android, iOS, Mac, Windows, FreeBSD, Linux, etc. etc.
I can assume my users have a web browser - because they do. For interpreted languages (and VMs) I either have to walk my users through setting up the interpreter or bundle it into the distributable.
Compared to everything else I've worked with, the web as an application delivery platform is great. I write my code, send someone a link, and they are running my app.
> Java Applets were available from close to day one right along side JavaScript, and yet...
And yet, what?
But the actual question is: Why? ;-)
> There is the document web and the application web. Both are equally valid.
No, they aren't. The tech was build to support only a lightweight version of the first one. Everything on top is just a great hack, and pure insanity form the technical viewpoint!
> It is absolutely an application platform, as evidence by the fact people use it to deliver applications.
People do a lot of very stupid things. That's not evidence that doing stupid things is a good idea…
> An ever increasing percentage of desktop software is moving to the browser
Nobody is doing that because web-tech is a great application platform. It's actually exactly the other way around: Most people complain about the extremely crappy tech, but still do it for other reasons.
> I'd argue the only reason mobile hasn't followed suite is the non-market forces behind the app store model.
This makes no sense.
It would be much cheaper for the developers to not pay road toll to the app-store owners (-30%!), and they would at the same time remain in control over their own products, if they "delivered" web-apps. But most mobile developers don't do that, for technical reasons: Web apps are just crap and especially on mobile it glaringly shows.
> I can write my software exactly one time and it will run on every platform
You mean, like JVM applications already did 25 years ago?
> Compared to everything else I've worked with, the web as an application delivery platform is great. I write my code, send someone a link, and they are running my app.
What's again the difference here to Java WebStart?
BTW: Installing a JRE is exactly the same one-off effort like installing a web-browser…
---
We lost between 20 and 30 years once again just for political reasons!
Only to arrive at the worst rip-off of some concepts which were already almost "working fine".
I admit that's a recurring pattern. It's always the most terrible tech that will come out on top in the end, for completely insane "reasons". The market just always favors the cheapest shit that can be rolled out with least effort. It was like that for example with things like C or UNIX. Now "worse is better" became a kind of proverb in some circles…
To be of the opinion that the technical best solutions win in the market is imho a sign of not much experience in this world. It was until now the exact opposite in almost all relevant cases, because most of the time the cheapest shit wins on the market.
If we spent all the effort we used up on making JavaScript work on Java instead, I’d be typing this from my Moon habitat.
But we instead chose a pig, buried it under layers of lipstick, and strapped a jet engine onto it. Sure, it’s airworthy, but was it the best way to allocate resources?