Ajax - sounds Greek to me

also: hype or real improvement

[Darkelve]

Just wanted to ask: I've been reading all about Ajax and Web 2.0

Sorry to sound sceptical, but I don't see what real advantages it can bring not already available with current technology. And Web '2.0'? #*$!!? Sounds as if the web is like a software application with a similar development process.

My sceptical mind whispers to me this is another (smaller) bubble building up, waiting to explode.

Of course, I'm not very well-versed in the technicalities, so I would like to hear other people's opinions about this.

[DrDoc]

AJAX technology has been around (and used) for years. There is nothing new or even creative about AJAX that has not existed before.

That being said -- AJAX is a lot of hype. I have yet to see one really good solution using AJAX. AJAX has a lot of cons and is most of the time overkill in the wrong direction. Yes, there are valid uses for it. But so far no one is really using it properly, and to its fullest potential. Many misunderstand it. The fact that they think it is new just shows that they are not ready for it.

Now, "Web 2.0" ... That's a lame term. Terms like that are coined by people who need fancy phrases to throw around just to sound important. And, even if they somehow can justify a reason for calling the web "2.0" (because of new technologies or whatever) the fact of the matter is that 2.0 is old stuff. If you are going to throw various functionality and technology into a group and call it "2.0", you better throw truly new and innovative stuff in there.

But the reality is that all "2.0" stuff is hype, old news, just like AJAX. It has been used for years.

... it just didn't have a name before, and no one talked much about it.

[DrDoc]

For a quite honest and down to earth look at AJAX, consider the following articles:

[en.wikipedia.org...]
[sourcelabs.com...]

So far, AJAX has introduced more problems than the ones it has solved. The unexplainable urge for developers to jump on the AJAX train is not improving things.

[wildbest]

Now, "Web 2.0" ... That's a lame term. Terms like that are coined by people who need fancy phrases to throw around just to sound important. And, even if they somehow can justify a reason for calling the web "2.0" (because of new technologies or whatever) the fact of the matter is that 2.0 is old stuff....

Sorry, can't agree! Web 2.0 generally means business on the Web will be based on SOA (Service Oriented Architecture). UDDI is a central point in Web 2.0, not AJAX.

[uddi.org...]

[edited by: DrDoc at 11:17 am (utc) on Feb. 20, 2006]
[edit reason] linked to UDDI.org [/edit]

[DrDoc]

UDDI is old stuff. It's been around since 2000. Hardly deserving of a "2.0" label.
But, that just goes to prove that once you give it a "2.0" label, all of a sudden hype builds up around it and it seems to gain a form of importance.

[edited by: DrDoc at 11:19 am (utc) on Feb. 20, 2006]

[wildbest]

In the field of technology, nothing starts from today! Everything has its deep roots in the past. Just trying to explain what is Web 2.0 and why Ajax is not the Web 2.0 focus.

BTW, the links to NTT site you have changed with uddi.org have more popular description of what is UDDI and how it makes Web different for businesses to interact...

[DrDoc]

The question was not whether AJAX was part of "Web 2.0" or not. There were two distinct questions, and two distinct answers. :)

The label "Web 2.0" is still nondescript. It is not understood by most. Many are now beginning to hear the phrase "2.0" thinking that it is about some new and innovative things which are about to change the web, assuming they must jump on the "2.0" train or forever be left in the past.

I just wanted to emphasize that "2.0" is not new. It is old stuff. It has already come and begun working. The "2.0" stuff is already in place and has already changed the web.

The stuff which is new today is moreso a late "3.0" generation, although probably more of a "4.0" generation. But, who cares. The mere title Web 2.0 adds a skewed hype to things which do not necessarily apply to you.

[DrDoc]

For everyone's information and enlightenment: What is Web 2.0? [oreillynet.com]

[Rambo Tribble]

Marketers love catchy words and phrases. "AJAX" or "Web 2.0" are marketing terms. That doesn't mean they don't serve a purpose; marketplace awareness of the technologies these terms represent has skyrocketed, in no small part because of the approachability of these terms.

Yes, XMLHttpRequest has been around for some time (though broad browser support is more recent). Even most professionals, however, weren't aware of it until it gained focus under the aegis of "AJAX". More importantly, the CEO doesn't have to know about the instantiation of an XMLHttpRequest object, he just has to know, "It's AJAX."

Increasingly, we are likely to see AJAX form the front end for SOA apps. Hence the association of AJAX with Web 2.0.

The upshot? More jobs for JavaScript developers. What's so bad about that? Hate the term? I suggest you learn to live with it.

[billegal]

Web 2.0 implies there was a 1.0. Of course many of the individual pieces are old. Perhaps it is that we are taking notice of them in a way that moves the we beyond the early "Guest Book" pages.

The first time I dragged a Google Map and saw it update, I gasped. There is no doubt to me that Google Maps were a leap beyond Mapquest. I think GoodMail was another such idea.

UI features like type ahead, drag and drop, or some of the fancier page updates, had not usually been associated with a web app. I'm OK calling that leap AJAX and knowing that it means a web interface that feels more app like.

I do agree that until the interface conventions settle down and people understand where/why to use it, there will be some overuse and/or misuse of the technology. But that's a normal part of the development of the technology.

I'm also OK with Web 2.0 as an AJAX-y plus data mashup type reference. While there may have been such instances in the past, the technology plus the trend to its widespread use merits some label. Why not Web 2.0?

[Rambo Tribble]

Yes, vehemently eschewing the terms does suggest a hubristic Luddite-ism. (tee hee)