I think that whoever is using IE as of today is disrespecting and spitting on the work of web developers. You can't do that damage to thousands of devs only because you don't give a damn fuck about installing a new browser (which actually takes one click and one minute) and be considered a nice person. Im sorry but if we don't stop supporting IE lazy people won't change browser ever. I am telling this from 2017 and IE is still lurking out there. Oh and FFS uninstall whatever windows <10 at once
Mashups are nothing new – they're a lesson that Unix taught us, the lesson that mashups are good and that dumb utilities working together can be very clever indeed.
There was a time when Douglas Crockford was speaking about JavaScript with a sort of disappointment (Crockford JS lectures delivered at Yahoo) but the new JS community (with NodeJS and other stuff), Douglas Crockford seems more confident and the weird parts of JS became the building blocks for new JS community. #LiveLongJavaScript
He says Threads are evil. I can mostly agree. However, if I have multicore machine and cannot create new threads through tasks how I will get benefit out of it? Will javascript use only single core forever?
I disagree with the supporting IE6 comment Doug makes in this video. Unless you are targeting China there is no need to support that browser. And the reason so many people in China are still using IE6 is because they are also using older, more easily pirated versions of Windows. If you are selling a product it probably won't be these people purchasing it.
Which century is this from? I feel like any video with Crockford, as much as I appreciate his common sense, is from early 2000s. Nobody uses IE6. Nobody important at least. They can all curl up and virtually die.
Here is a variant of aspects to solve the mashup problem. The building block is a component, and components are composed in packages. There is a notion of A being a subcomponent of B. One package may incorporate a parameterization of another. A package may declare an equality between two components.
Syntax: "A for B" A is a subcomponent of B "A is B" A is the same component as B
The algorithm for mashups is:
If (A for B) is (C for D), first mash B with D If (A for B) is (C for B)… If (A for B) is abstract, set (A for B) = (C for B) If (A for B) and (C for B) are both concrete, mash A with C
The definition of "mash" can be different for each type of component. E.g. it could mean, "take the union of the members."
Packages can also be forced to obey additional properties, which the weaver must prove in order to complete a solution to a mashup.
i love how crockford says microsoft was blindsided by ajax after disbanding its web team after forrester's 2000 declaration, when in reality, microsoft's web team is who created ajax in 1999
Oh dear. I hate JavaScript because it is not type safe. It is a write-once language. Not even in his list. IE6 must die!? Well I have an old XP computer running an old version of IE. It runs fine and I'm no upgrading it so this chap can satisfy his wish list. "Like another language, then go program in it." – Well no, JavaScript has a monopoly. I cant. Java failed because the libraries were so huge. I remember trying to download an app and being told it would take 3 hours to download with the new libraries it needed. Very disconcerting that this chap is so out of touch with the real world.
Once you understand that anything you put on the web is NOT, NEVER, EVER going to be secure then we can get on to doing real advancements and benefits for humanity using the WEB. DO NOT plug in a power station system to the public internet, DO NOT plug in a Nuclear facility to the public internet and so on. How retarded can you be to even think about doing that not alone doing it lol. Hackers will find it, that is after all what the WEB is made for, to share and find things…
I think many have lost the fundamentals of what the WEB is. So many people are trying to make a quick buck on the web, a business, a media distribution method and so on actually making the web or turning it into something it is not. The web is an open sharing platform of free information where all humans no matter from what walk of life can share, read, write, copy data at free will meaning freedom and without charge. If you charged for it then it wont work, if you password controlled it then it wont work. That free access control on the WEB is what makes the web, that is what it is, nothing more nothing less.
If business needs a secure business model they need push off and use something else other than the WEB as the web is free. It is proven time and time again that it works and there is no reason to have anything on the web possworded, why would you if the information within is effectively free, non constraining and poses no purpouse to be cracked. What would a cracker go and crack if it has no reason for it to be cracked.
Personal data well that is another matter but WEB and personal data is something that should not have existed in the first place. Most of us know that when we walk down the road naked we are letting people see all our private parts so we put on some clothes. or only be naked in the privacy of our own homes. put simply keep your private stuff OFF the WEB lol.
The openPGP model works but this software only came about because of an open free system. It posed the problem of "If the software source code is available in full, how could one make it so that it is secure?" This is where the idea came around for random generated keys that can be run at runtime so no one session is ever the same nor any key the user generates will ever be the same and would take forever and a day to crack.
Intel and AMD have a very power dedicated AES core that works like this, it really is not hard to begin to implament this within sessions for private data. Most programers dont think out the box, they only want the pay check at the end of the week regardless. It's just another less labour intensive job to them.
23 responses to “Douglas Crockford: Really. JavaScript.”
The Lazy Programmer's Guide to Secure Computing (Marc Stiegler) ?v=eL5o4PFuxTY
It has been referenced in the video
I think that whoever is using IE as of today is disrespecting and spitting on the work of web developers. You can't do that damage to thousands of devs only because you don't give a damn fuck about installing a new browser (which actually takes one click and one minute) and be considered a nice person. Im sorry but if we don't stop supporting IE lazy people won't change browser ever. I am telling this from 2017 and IE is still lurking out there. Oh and FFS uninstall whatever windows <10 at once
I lol-d so hard at "Security by inconvenience" 🙂
Mashups are nothing new – they're a lesson that Unix taught us, the lesson that mashups are good and that dumb utilities working together can be very clever indeed.
That hacker pretty much put Douglas in his place. I think Douglas is completely clueless of what he was trying to tell him.
wow, had my volume turned up really loud and that "AARR!" at the beginning scared me to death 😂😂
There was a time when Douglas Crockford was speaking about JavaScript with a sort of disappointment (Crockford JS lectures delivered at Yahoo) but the new JS community (with NodeJS and other stuff), Douglas Crockford seems more confident and the weird parts of JS became the building blocks for new JS community. #LiveLongJavaScript
He says Threads are evil. I can mostly agree. However, if I have multicore machine and cannot create new threads through tasks how I will get benefit out of it? Will javascript use only single core forever?
I disagree with the supporting IE6 comment Doug makes in this video. Unless you are targeting China there is no need to support that browser. And the reason so many people in China are still using IE6 is because they are also using older, more easily pirated versions of Windows. If you are selling a product it probably won't be these people purchasing it.
https://developer.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-edge/ie6countdown/
JSLint does not actually "remove" any of the bad parts from JS. While JSLint and Crockford's book may help you navigate through the bad parts, this approach places an additional and unnecessary cognitive burden on the programmer. I write about this here: https://medium.com/@richardeng/the-case-against-javascript-75854c07bfba. And I challenge ECMA here: https://medium.com/@richardeng/an-open-letter-to-ecma-cb60ee917da9.
Which century is this from? I feel like any video with Crockford, as much as I appreciate his common sense, is from early 2000s. Nobody uses IE6. Nobody important at least. They can all curl up and virtually die.
Here is a variant of aspects to solve the mashup problem. The building block is a component, and components are composed in packages. There is a notion of A being a subcomponent of B. One package may incorporate a parameterization of another. A package may declare an equality between two components.
Syntax:
"A for B" A is a subcomponent of B
"A is B" A is the same component as B
The algorithm for mashups is:
If (A for B) is (C for D), first mash B with D
If (A for B) is (C for B)…
If (A for B) is abstract, set (A for B) = (C for B)
If (A for B) and (C for B) are both concrete, mash A with C
The definition of "mash" can be different for each type of component. E.g. it could mean, "take the union of the members."
Packages can also be forced to obey additional properties, which the weaver must prove in order to complete a solution to a mashup.
Crock in cargo pants.
At least he's not sporting that purple Dr.Who coat.
Stop trying to be fashionable, Doug.
That's not why we listen to you.
i love how crockford says microsoft was blindsided by ajax after disbanding its web team after forrester's 2000 declaration, when in reality, microsoft's web team is who created ajax in 1999
Oh dear. I hate JavaScript because it is not type safe. It is a write-once language. Not even in his list. IE6 must die!? Well I have an old XP computer running an old version of IE. It runs fine and I'm no upgrading it so this chap can satisfy his wish list. "Like another language, then go program in it." – Well no, JavaScript has a monopoly. I cant. Java failed because the libraries were so huge. I remember trying to download an app and being told it would take 3 hours to download with the new libraries it needed. Very disconcerting that this chap is so out of touch with the real world.
"Javascript is good for beginners and masters" that might be true. But it does NOT suit the intermediates who do not use it very often.
35:38 I don't understand, how Ajax library looks like?
One thing the description should mention: this video is from 2010 (April).
The fact that it was posted on Youtube in 2013 leads to confusion.
Links:
On the Criteria To Be Used in Decomposing Systems into Modules
https://www.cs.umd.edu/class/spring2003/cmsc838p/Design/criteria.pdf
The Lazy Programmer's Guide to Secure Computing
The Lazy Programmer's Guide to Secure Computing
Once you understand that anything you put on the web is NOT, NEVER, EVER going to be secure then we can get on to doing real advancements and benefits for humanity using the WEB. DO NOT plug in a power station system to the public internet, DO NOT plug in a Nuclear facility to the public internet and so on. How retarded can you be to even think about doing that not alone doing it lol. Hackers will find it, that is after all what the WEB is made for, to share and find things…
I think many have lost the fundamentals of what the WEB is. So many people are trying to make a quick buck on the web, a business, a media distribution method and so on actually making the web or turning it into something it is not. The web is an open sharing platform of free information where all humans no matter from what walk of life can share, read, write, copy data at free will meaning freedom and without charge. If you charged for it then it wont work, if you password controlled it then it wont work. That free access control on the WEB is what makes the web, that is what it is, nothing more nothing less.
If business needs a secure business model they need push off and use something else other than the WEB as the web is free. It is proven time and time again that it works and there is no reason to have anything on the web possworded, why would you if the information within is effectively free, non constraining and poses no purpouse to be cracked. What would a cracker go and crack if it has no reason for it to be cracked.
Personal data well that is another matter but WEB and personal data is something that should not have existed in the first place. Most of us know that when we walk down the road naked we are letting people see all our private parts so we put on some clothes. or only be naked in the privacy of our own homes. put simply keep your private stuff OFF the WEB lol.
The openPGP model works but this software only came about because of an open free system. It posed the problem of "If the software source code is available in full, how could one make it so that it is secure?" This is where the idea came around for random generated keys that can be run at runtime so no one session is ever the same nor any key the user generates will ever be the same and would take forever and a day to crack.
Intel and AMD have a very power dedicated AES core that works like this, it really is not hard to begin to implament this within sessions for private data. Most programers dont think out the box, they only want the pay check at the end of the week regardless. It's just another less labour intensive job to them.
Where did he get the ie6 number from please?
I've coded for 16 years (including javascript), and this video filled-in the gaps in my understanding. Thank you!