Javascript JIT in web browsers

[Manuel Wolfshant]

On 08/17/2010 02:35 AM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 15:48:14 -0700,
>   Adam Williamson <awilliam at redhat.com> wrote:
>   
>> Meanwhile, back in the real world, it is effectively impossible to use
>> all sorts of useful websites without Javascript enabled. Even for
>>     
>
> Then don't use them. If sites don't get used they may stop requiring
> people to significantly reduce the security of their systems to use them.
> It doesn't even have to be all of them, just the ones that aren't that
> important.
>   
    Do you REALLY believe that in a world where 90% of the desktops are 
Windows, where 2 thirds of the browser market is shared by IE and safari 
and where making governments to share public documents in a public 
format rather than .doc/.xls/etc, web site managers would care if you 
stop visiting their site ( which you probably NEED to access otherwise 
you would not be trying to visit it in the first place)  ?


>> Shipping a Firefox with no ability to use Javascript would be more or
>> less equal to not shipping it, frankly. No-one would use the thing.
>>     
>
> While I think Firefox could do several things to increase it's real
> security instead of it's apparent security, I was actually complaining
> about the server side. Sites that use javascript encourage people to
> leave it turned on and even optional javascript is bad. 
correct. too bad most developers do not care at all about anything but 
the easiest way to fix the punctual problem that was given to them and 
simply ignore the larger picture.

> Other ways of
> doing things (xforms, css, server computation) should be used instead.
absolutely correct. alternate ways exist, but how many companies / web 
developers care about doing it "the right way" ?

wolfy "I absolutely hate sites created in flash"