X-Original-To: alpine-devel@lists.alpinelinux.org Delivered-To: alpine-devel@mail.alpinelinux.org Received: from jeremythomerson.com (mail.jeremythomerson.com [74.117.189.150]) by mail.alpinelinux.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4D8CDC00A7; Wed, 5 Dec 2012 17:06:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-wi0-f180.google.com (mail-wi0-f180.google.com [209.85.212.180]) by jeremythomerson.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 448531CB35; Wed, 5 Dec 2012 11:14:35 -0600 (CST) Received: by mail-wi0-f180.google.com with SMTP id hj13so1350684wib.7 for ; Wed, 05 Dec 2012 09:06:48 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.180.80.201 with SMTP id t9mr4430547wix.0.1354727208509; Wed, 05 Dec 2012 09:06:48 -0800 (PST) X-Mailinglist: alpine-devel Precedence: list List-Id: Alpine Development List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Reply-To: jeremy@thomersonfamily.com Received: by 10.194.88.163 with HTTP; Wed, 5 Dec 2012 09:06:28 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <50BF7DCB.4040208@arcor.de> References: <20121129152317.69585a4f@ncopa-desktop.alpinelinux.org> <201212022211.23812.vkrishn4@gmail.com> <50BF7DCB.4040208@arcor.de> From: Jeremy Thomerson Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2012 11:06:28 -0600 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [acf] Re: [alpine-devel] Ideas for a new config framework, ACF2 To: Der Tiger Cc: Kaarle Ritvanen , "V.Krishn" , "alpine-devel@lists.alpinelinux.org" , Alpine ACF Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf3068456f07e02004d01e0287 --20cf3068456f07e02004d01e0287 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 11:00 AM, Der Tiger wrote: > Hi Kaarle, > > > As much as I dislike JavaScript as a programming language, I still > > think it is the best choice for client implementation. Virtually all > > devices support JavaScript nowadays, and there are lots of tools which > > we can leverage in our implementation. > The problem with a client implementation and mobile devices won't be so > much compatibility, but performance. PDAs and Tablets still don't offer > a lot of cpu power, while the OS and the browser software itself often > use up most of the available resources. Soon, the JavaScript client > software is likely to hit a performance wall on those devices, when the > complexity of the client software increases with functionality. > Not true with most modern smart phones. If you're still using a Blackberry, then yes - perhaps. But most smart phones now are better than the best laptops three years ago. > I can't help myself, but with all that has been written, I still don't > see the benefit of a strict client implementation over a JavaScript-free > host implementation. You and Nathanael, on the other hand, seem to be > quite set on advocating your proposal. Well, I suppose you've thought it > through. > For many years I have been an advocate of making sites that work with or without JS (incremental improvements). However, nowadays this is not strictly necessary, and for a niche market like server admins using Alpine / ACF you can set your own browser requirements without many ramifications. Regards, JT --20cf3068456f07e02004d01e0287 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Dec 5, 20= 12 at 11:00 AM, Der Tiger <der.tiger.alpine@arcor.de> wrote:
Hi Kaarle,

> As much as I dislike JavaScript as a programming language, I still
> think it is the best choice for client implementation. Virtually all > devices support JavaScript nowadays, and there are lots of tools which=
> we can leverage in our implementation.
The problem with a client implementation and mobile devices won't= be so
much compatibility, but performance. PDAs and Tablets still don't offer=
a lot of cpu power, while the OS and the browser software itself often
use up most of the available resources. Soon, the JavaScript client
software is likely to hit a performance wall on those devices, when the
complexity of the client software increases with functionality.

Not true with most modern smart phones.=A0 If you're stil= l using a Blackberry, then yes - perhaps.=A0 But most smart phones now are = better than the best laptops three years ago.
=A0
I can't help myself, but with all that has been written, I still don= 9;t
see the benefit of a strict client implementation over a JavaScript-free host implementation. You and Nathanael, on the other hand, seem to be
quite set on advocating your proposal. Well, I suppose you've thought i= t
through.

For many years I have been an= advocate of making sites that work with or without JS (incremental improve= ments).=A0 However, nowadays this is not strictly necessary, and for a nich= e market like server admins using Alpine / ACF you can set your own browser= requirements without many ramifications.

Regards,
JT
--20cf3068456f07e02004d01e0287-- --- Unsubscribe: alpine-devel+unsubscribe@lists.alpinelinux.org Help: alpine-devel+help@lists.alpinelinux.org ---