What's Spreading "the AJAX Wildfire"? 192
An anonymous reader writes "AJAXWorld Magazine is running an article entitled "What's So Special About AJAX?" in which the majority of the contributors agree among themselves that AJAX "heralds a new, global sense of what the web can be and what the web can do, in ways that are so different but so much better than what we have been used to." While many of those the magazine consulted adduced technical reasons for the spread what one of them, Rich Internet Application pioneer Coach Wei, calls "the AJAX wildfire," only two mention how human nature — including that of software developers — is, well, notoriously susceptible to the latest fad. Which side would you agree with?"
not just a new fad (Score:2, Insightful)
Ruby is more likely to be just another fad, AJAX is actually something new. That's not to say someone won't make a better way to do what AJAX does (they probably will), but AJAX is definitely something unique, new, and important.
What's so special about AJAX? (Score:2, Insightful)
Nothing! The tech for it has been around forever, they just slapped a new name on it.
It IS nice to make web applications that can behave more like desktop applications.
It's the latest fad (Score:2, Insightful)
Unfortunately, that platform is the web browser, and attempting to run applications in it gives as AJAX, since Java failed to provide a suitable cross-platform environment. We could be running NeWS (NEtworked Window System by Sun, not the stuff you see on Slashdot), Flash, Java, or even remote-PC programs that transmit I/O across the network, now that sufficient compression is being developed. However, history overrides technology and gives us AJAX.
Re:What ever happened to XUL? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ajax also lacks an installation step. As far as I can tell you always had to download and approve XUL code before it could run, and sometime requires you to reboot your browser.
Availability is always going to trump elegance when it comes to environments.
Not a fad (Score:5, Insightful)
Slashdot's new comment system uses AJAX to make my Slashdot experience better. They're not done with it yet, but what they've got so far makes it easier to browse Slashdot. The link to read the rest of a very long truncated comment now loads the rest of the comment inline into the page, instead of reloading the entire page like it used to; I can read replies without opening the links in a new tab and switching back and forth like I used to, I can even change my thresholds without reloading. Sometimes I like to open several articles on my laptop and read them when I'm offline; that works better now. Next will be a more convenient way to moderate, and a better way to write replies.
Will AJAX go away? Sure, after a better technology comes along. But until then, AJAX is genuinely useful.
AJAX/Remote Scripting Hype (Score:5, Insightful)
The AJAX hype is like the DHTML craze all over again. IMO if you can't create a site using remote scripting without suppressing the urge to advertise to the world that you're doing so, chances are you're abusing the technology. Why should your user base care what the hell technology you're using? It should just work.
What's in a name? (Score:4, Insightful)
Deja Vu all over again (Score:3, Insightful)
I see Ajax-based applications as being very reminiscent of the what used to be called "full-duplex" applications. Unix, because it was based on using teletypes for I/O to the user, and because teletypes were inherently full-duplex, seemed much more interactive, at least with some applications. Nothing quite like Ajax, but a step in that direction. Conventional main-frame apps, based on either half-duplex (I type, then I hit carriage return, and the keyboard locks until the system responds) or electronic versions of that (such as with the famous 3270 displays, which would lose characters if you typed when the system wrote to the screen), were much more
So, it seems to me that, from the user's viewpoint, Ajax can allow the app builder to effectively decouple user input and system output, and make the whole "flow" between system and user be much more continuous, and less synchronized. Another way of seeing this is thinking of an overseas phone call in the days of poor channel allocators, which really made it necessary to stop talking when the other person started, or neither of you would hear the other. Nothing at all like a really engaged, face-to-face, conversation.
Re:What ever happened to XUL? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:If it's a wildfire then, get me some matches, s (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:not just a new fad (Score:2, Insightful)
Is there something terrible about JSON that I have yet to be burned on?
The evolution of web fads... (Score:2, Insightful)
- The <marque> tag in IE
- The animated GIF89
- The <iframe>
- Flash animation
- The HTTP XML Request/Response in JavaScript
Answer: When people first used them, they way over-used them, but then they just kinda sank into the mix. In time they all became useful, but in small doses. AJAX is no different. For a great example, see finance.google.com [google.com].Re:not just a new fad (Score:4, Insightful)
But javascript didn't change application architecture other than offloading field validation or allowing table column sorting, image swapping and stuff. AJAX breaks the web document model. A bigger change has come with other applications that use the web (ie http and URIs) outside of the browser - like RSS for instance. and websites that provide an API with xml-rpc or something similar. that's huge. the javascript change is nothing compared to that. web services, I guess they're called.
so to answer the question: is it a fad? yes, in the sense that now is the time to cash in with your 1115 page Bleating with AJAX book with DVD-ROM in the back and your smug mug on the front. yes, in the sense that lots of people will do unnecessary AJAX implementations for entirely selfish resume-style reasons. no, in the sense that the existence of AJAX points out the disconnect between the browser concept and what we want for applications on the net.
Re:It's the latest fad (Score:3, Insightful)
All this really seems to indicate is that "we" as a business entity haven't quite figured out with REAL numbers what the most efficient and productive use of computing resources is, yet.
If we knew for a fact that putting "X, Y, and Z" applications on the server, while those doing jobs related to "A, B and C" need to have that computing done on their desktops...
We might stand a chance in hell of becoming a real Engineering disipline someday.
"Best Practices" are nice, but show a distinct lack of maturity in the technologies used. "Codes" and "Standards" set over time with hard numbers to back them up are the world most "real" Engineers live in.
AJAX is an outlet for those who'd like web-browsers to do more than they were originally designed to do, is all. Useful? Extremely in some cases. But always? No.
Just like all other attempts to measure a technology by that technology's potential (e.g. The "bubble" bursting a few years back), this one is an exercise in futility.
Treat IT like a real business within your company and only dole out capital for IT that either makes or saves the company revenue -- and you'll have all those pesky things like "business models" fall into place. No need for a model -- use the real numbers. Only guess when you HAVE to.
AJAX as a technology then: Useful, to a point. Just like all technology enhancements. The real trick is to see if AJAX can save money over building a real app for a desktop or thin-client machine. Somehow, I truly doubt it. Does it possibly save money by forcing central-administration? Yeah, maybe, but I've seen companies so bogged down in the hassles of centralized administration to know that sometimes their business divisions NEED the flexibility of a custom application. Etc.
In short: We'll see how useful it is by looking at the REAL numbers of those willing to gamble with their IT budgets. If they're gaining ground over everyone else (Google certainly seems to be, but they might be the exception rather than the rulle), then perhaps it's time to make a shift within our own organizations.
Re:not just a new fad (Score:3, Insightful)
While this is completely true, in many instances, it does significantly reduce the quantity of data transferred. This is especially true in systems like Amazon.com where lots of analysis is done on every page to present users with relevent information. That information no longer needs to be recomputed all the time.
Excellent! You're so close, now dig deeper.
We don't really care about "AJAX," do we? No... its the idea that excites any web developer. The concept of highly dynamic -- almost application like -- web pages without relying on any third party modifications (see: Java Applets, see: Flash). Is Ajax a fad? Probably. But its more than that. It's an evolutionary step in interactive web design.
Re:The overhead of AJAX. (Score:3, Insightful)
You'll especially save the bandwidth formerly used by those customers which left you because they can't bookmark your pages any more.
Re:not just a new fad (Score:3, Insightful)
In my opinion, when someone uses "ajax" but with html and javascript only its really dhtml. Now if someone is really using xml documents and doing something original i'll give them credit for the latest fad.
AJAX is totally unreliable (Score:1, Insightful)
No good webpage should depend on javascript, the user can disable it, or it may be disabled for them by somebody else while they are completely unaware of why your page does not work at all.
Ban javascript!