Or better yet. A new web language. One that is totally new and doesn't use html at all! :O how cool would that be?
>>55235592
HTML isn't all that bad, Javascript is though.
>>55235598
javascript is the future, kid
>>55235634
pajeet pls go
>>55235639
Java is pajeet
Javascript is scrub
If you call me names atleast do it right
>>55235592
Hope about a system based on linear constraints instead of the box model and co.
Are you retarded? Why do think this will be a good thing?
>>55235634
JavaScript will leave us a hilarious legacy. I predict ASM.js or another JavaScript backend will take off and js engines will optimize for the generated code.
The ability to easily compile many languages to portable web code will lead to JavaScript being an implementation detail.
HTML6 is coming soon. The ability to self define tags is a pretty neat addition.
No new language, that would be idiotic. However it would be nice if HTML had a language aspect to it, to replace JavaScript.
>>55235634
lets just replace html with javascript outright
javascript is taking over everything else, anyway
>>55235684
webassembly
>>55235592
>Ctrl-F TeX
>no results
Just add LaTeX support in browsers, they already support everything under the sun anyway. You don't need a new document language, you need a proven one. LaTeX, PostScript or even just PDFs. Why can't my blog be a PDF document that's rendered without some retarded PDFjs that tries to emulate a book?
>>55235592
>:O
leave
>>55236317
This guy has the right idea
>>55235598
>I don't understand how to navigate the DOM
>>55236202
Div + classname?
>>55235592
>":O"
not even reddit wants you there
>>>/facebook/
>>55235598
ES6 is godtier son, and there's a lot of shit that makes it even better like coffeescript or node (implying you can debug it)
>>55235598
> </span></div></div></div></div></div> isn't all that bad
>>55237766
The DOM is pretty good. What do you propose instead? Something constraint based?
>>55237823
It's not the tree, it's the syntax. Even JSON, which is utter shit, would be infinitely better than this </> ridden piece of shit.
>>55237766
how about you use some markup that isn't shit instead?
>>55236202
>replace JavaScript
dont get my hopes up.
>>55237865
So you mean that } is just inherently better than </>? Why not just write a JSON to HTML parser?
>>55237959
}}}} is many characters shorter </span></div></body></html>. Make it indented like Python if you want something that looks really clean.
It's not about making yet another parser, you still have to send all this shit through the wire and a parser still has to munch on these closing tags.
>>55235634
No, javascript is the present.
Besides, it being "the future" doesn't make it good.
>>55238012
Then write a clientside parser
>>55238012
What is your problem with that?
Disk space / network usage?
Your editor should help you with closing things.
>>55238139
>>55238097
No, that's all wasting bandwidth and a fucking three column layout is KBs of shit. Stop deluding yourself, you know we can do better.
>>55238224
We could always use ((((s-expressions)))).
[spoiler]That could be cool.[/spoiler]
>>55237552
>ES6 is godtier son
Nah it's shit. You can't make Javascript anywhere close to decent without breaking backwards compatibility in huge ways. Web assembly might save us though.
>all these fucking retards wanting to replace HTML with JS or other type of cancer
Guess what you niggers, HTML is static and infinitely faster than JS.
I absolutely hate 3MB websites with 100kb of HTML/CSS and 2.9MB of JS.
You're the cancer.
>>55235634
Javascript is the future of the web in the same way Islam is the future of Europe. That's in no way a good thing, go fuck yourself.
>>55238273
Theissue is that HTML sucks so much, you need 2.9 MB of JS to make it good.
If HTML was actually good a 100 kB website could do the same as the current 3 MB ones.
>>55238333
Maybe you should just start using pure JS, and not including 200k of jQuery and libraries.
>>55238357
That's the next issue. JS is shit as well.
>>55235592
>how cool would that be
Instead of asking why in hell some would do such. This world is done for.
>>55238357
Fucking this so goddam much
>>55238357
Why not just ship the common libraries with the browser?
>>55238861
They are cached anyway, but I don't know the details.
Also, what about updating them if they come with your browser? What about older browsers that don't support it?
>>55238904
Check out decentraleyes
The problem with browser cache is that it is often too small and is wiped out too frequently
>>55235592
>:O
Sure is summer here
>>55239157
ikr :-)
>>55238904
>>55239061
Check out the recent Google IO stuff on service workers. I think it's a per-site thing, but definitely relevant.
>>55235634
For javascript to be the future than it would need to be rewritten to not be shit in the first place
>>55235592
y tho
html is good enough already
CSS probably should get some refinements.
There's a lot of random noise ITT with people targeting the wrong things.
A problem with people mention is that JavaScript slows down websites. However, this is a fault of the website not necessarily JS. By linking all your external script files in the head of the page instead of at the very end, the loading of these script files block other components from downloading. This is due to the nature of JS but can be easily avoidable by the website.
Another thing a lot of people are suggesting are completely different standards to replace HTML and JS with other standards which would be a terrible idea. All the browser vendors would now have to implement a completely new way of interpreting and rendering pages which would take so long to accomplish. Most of the major browser vendors are not even caught up with ES2015 JS, chrome only reached 100% ES6 compatibility recently.
So I think what we have now is good enough and is still improving. ES7 is being specced up and HTML web components looks to be promising.
>>55239882
>having a thousand lines of JS doesn't slow down your website
>>55236421
Good fucking bye to dynamic pages if we start using latex or pdf. Maybe if they're extended out the ass, but as they are right now? It'd be like going back to 1992
>>55235592
Something more lightweight than JS would be kinda cool, but I can't help but feel alone in my liking of JS I don't know I've just always like the structure of JS
>>55238247
like this?
>>55239891
I did not make that claim. It will take time to download their big ass shitty JS file but if they strategically link to it at the end of the html page instead of the start it will be a better UX. Near the top of the page, parts of the page will load but will stop because the download of a JS script blocks other elements from downloading, and then parts of the page pop in. At the end of the html page, the page will load and while the user is reading the content the long ass JS file can download where it doesn't fight other things from downloading.
The idea behind it is really good actually
http://html6spec.com/
