You used JavaScrript to write WHAT?

Favorite sentence: "There is no doubt that overzealous scripters have built applications that stretch the limits of JavaScript...and in some cases, reason."<p>We're quite proud to be stretching the limits of reason :-)<p>But in all seriousness, this is a decent explanation of the difference between a web page and a web app. Very few people writing things on the web today <i>need</i> javascript, and designers of such sites should ensure that their pages do degrade gracefully. If you're building an application of some reasonable level of complexity, however, it's probably okay to leave those unwilling to join the javascript party behind.

I take issue with the suggestion to use Flash instead of Javascript. If you can use Javascript instead of Flash, by all means, do it. Flash is much less cross-platform, it isn't even 64-bit yet (at least on Linux), it tends to leak memory all over the place, and it provides more access to my system than I would like. I block most Flash, with the exception of Youtube and a few others.

this is the kind of bullshit you would read in 1999 accusing JS. Let's move, shall we?<p>Do I have to remind you that IE 5.0 is already 10 years old, IE 6.0 at least 7? and IE 7.0 already 1 year old?<p>Javascript is obviously here to stay and part of the web reality, whether you like it or not...

"First and foremost..." Any article using that phrase is undoubtedly the worse article I've read that week. And ding, ding, this one is!

Please link to one-paged print version: <a href="http://www.cio.com/article/print/175950" rel="nofollow">http://www.cio.com/article/print/175950</a>