Sigh...
Interesting. I didn't know that. I fail to see the relevance, though.
Research before you post, always a wise choice. And the relevance is explained below.
Why would you want to? Do you think that is what Google is trying to do?
Because that is what you implied when you said improving Javascript speed will make up for a slow network and "mainframe" when you replied to ZedRuhlen's post. It won't, by the way.
I'm not really sure how you would get such an idea.
I got such an idea when you implied that JS would make up for any shortcomings of the network or server, and it sounded like you were implying the OS was going to be built in JS. It won't be.
Of course not. By the way, flash runs on the Adobe VM which is a different technology than the engine running Javascript. The approach in Chromium OS seems to be to make a very lightweight OS (I would guess using C/C++) and then treat all apps as RIAs. The JavaScript VM in Chrome and no doubt Chromium OS is called V8 and is written in C++.
You're right, Flash and JS are different beasts. Compiled code is always faster, and JS is object-based, not object-oriented, a lot less robust for programmers. JS is also less capable of processing tasks that C/C++ and even Java are far superior in.
Why do you think Apple didn't just settle for HTML5/JS/CSS for all of their iPhone apps? For many reasons, really, but suffice it to say that they would be slower, less robust web-applications that wouldn't be able to take full advantage of their platform. Remember iPhone web-applications? They seem to be taking up residence with server-side JS in their popularity...
So, back to your original post:
The trend in all the major browsers is to make JavaScript run really really fast. Why do you think that is?
When you post things like what you did about the trend being to make JS faster in response to ZedRuhlen's post about mainframes (servers) and networks being slow, please try to understand that RIAs and JS won't speed that up. His point was that the network, "mainframes" (servers), and the connection to your ISP are too slow to make this "OS" feasible. I agree with him. This sure ain't the first (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_operating_system).
You said JS was going to make this "faster" by implying the current trend of speeding up JS is going to fix that. My point is that it won't, because you can only make JS so fast and it will never compete with OS-level speeds or make up for the network and server sluggishness.
This OS is essentially just a browser with the OS ripped out. Why and how is that a good idea? I'd much rather have my iPhone with me, and it is instantly on, needing no time to boot when I take it out of my pocket. Not to mention I can do everything and more that this Google "OS" can.
If you didn't imply that the trend of speeding up JS is to make RIAs faster so an OS like Google's is feasible, you aren't even talking about an OS, but merely a browser, in which case it didn't make sense what you wrote because it isn't relevant to a discussion about an OS. So I mentioned that server side JS was a relic from the past that is best left there, a good example of an early use of that language that was not designed to do much beyond what it is currently capable of doing. So, there you have the relevance of the things I mentioned that you seemed unable to piece together and hopefully some context and more clarity about what I posted.
Sure, do a networked OS (see jolicloud.com/tour), but don't cripple it if it isn't connected and don't write the core apps in an interpreted, scripted language. What's the point? Let us install apps, or, better yet, really innovate and write a network-based API that lets networked applications like Skype work without installing them (Flash has this sort of capability, as did Java Applets *cringe*). Write apps that use the network better with a faster API in a compiled language. Oh wait, that already exists in a few forms... (OS X, Windows, Linux...) This Google OS is just a browser without an OS under it. It isn't a real OS.
I get what you're saying about RIAs being fast and all that, but they will never be OS-fast. Why not just save copies of your data to the server from an OS-native networked-enabled application? That's all IMAP email is already, for example, but you can use any client, or a web-based one. The fact that Google Docs is a browser-based app doesn't necessarily make it a killer app. It is the server-based portability of it. I've often wished I could download a better word-processing app than what Google has provided in a browser to manage all my files I have there. And wtf can't I edit a Google Docs document on the iPhone yet? All they need is an app in the App Store. I'd love that.
Don't bog down the user experience with a real-time RIA and JS/network calls getting in the way. An OS-based application such as a text editor in a network-centric OS (like Chrome OS is trying to be) should save your changes elegantly and push stuff to the server when it can, when there is a network connection available, but don't penalize the user if there is no net connection. And it should give you a great user experience (aka, written in fast, compiled code, not RIAs) Believe it or not but it was Microsoft who tried that back in 2000 with their SOAP services, attempting to integrate them into Office. They kinda dropped the ball on that, but at least it turned into "Ajax/RIAs". Apple has MobileMe and iDisk. Whether you use a browser or an OS-native "app", the thing that really matters is the user experience and, ultimately, where your data goes. Why is it a bad thing to have my files on my computer? Why do I need to use a browser-based Rich Internet App instead of a fast, stable, robust, OS-native application? I'm very happy using a document editor of my own choosing, but sure, it can go ahead and optionally save my files to the server when it can. RIAs on Google OS as a killer app? Not really... But yeah, have an RIA, too, for when I'm traveling and at a coffee shop in Ireland or Hawaii, but force me to use browser RIAs for everything and not save anything locally? No thanks.
Macsmurf, We may inherently agree on the same thing and are probably saying similar things in different ways, but perhaps with the fundamental difference of disagreeing on Javascript being the core processing language for Google OS "RIA" (browser) apps. I think it is silly, frankly. And certainly not an "OS".
Bottom line for me:
Google now has two OSes and one is just a browser. Beyond the hype because it is Google, I just don't get it.
