It strikes me that we have come quite a way if JavaScript performance is now one of the biggest selling points of a browser. The change isn't all that surprising: with JavaScript powering almost all web applications, JavaScript performance is closely tied to the perceived speed of the browser itself.

I think the success of JavaScript is especially impressive when you consider that JavaScript is not a “clever” language, nor does it have any popular gimmick attached to it. It has succeeded solely by being ubiquitous (all major web browsers support JavaScript) and by undergoing steady improvement.]]> Mozilla recently released Firefox 9, a new version of their browser. One of its most important features is a JavaScript engine that is 36% faster than their previous version.

It strikes me that we have come quite a way if JavaScript performance is now one of the biggest selling points of a browser. The change isn’t all that surprising: with JavaScript powering almost all web applications, JavaScript performance is closely tied to the perceived speed of the browser itself.

I think the success of JavaScript is especially impressive when you consider that JavaScript is not a “clever” language, nor does it have any popular gimmick attached to it. It has succeeded solely by being ubiquitous (all major web browsers support JavaScript) and by undergoing steady improvement.

Other technologies, such as Java from Sun Microsystems and ActiveX from Microsoft, were once promoted as the future of web page scripting. ActiveX involved running signed binary code, or applets, directly from a web page. That approach tied users to Windows and Internet Explorer, a desirable side effect for Microsoft but not necessarily for others. Users also feared (quite reasonably, in my opinion) the potential security nightmare if a dangerous ActiveX control was accidentally run. Java’s “write-once, run-anywhere” approach sounded impressive, but the reality of poor performance and heavy memory consumption discouraged its use in web pages. (I always disable Java in my web browsers.)

JavaScript, on the other hand, was never billed as the next big language. Although originally dismissed by many programmers as being too simple to be useful, JavaScript really isn’t that simple. JavaScript has very little to do with Java (despite the similar name) but is a scripting language that more closely resembles C. JavaScript supports multiple paradigms; not just imperative programming (like C or Java) but also functional programming (like Lisp or Erlang). Support for object-oriented programming is also built into the language.

I think this is an excellent example of perfect being the enemy of the good. Java and ActiveX were “perfect” solutions for web page scripting that nonetheless had serious problems in the real world. JavaScript was merely a “good” language that was flexible enough to be used (some might say abused) for purposes no one envisioned when it was created. (Of course, Java and ActiveX have had plenty of success in other areas, but not general purpose web scripting.)

* * *

I’ve always had a soft spot in my heart for the programming language Forth. Forth was developed by Charles Moore in the 1960′s. It is a very simple language based around the concept of a stack, but behind that simplicity lies a great deal of power.

Forth remains one of my computing regrets, although probably not for the reasons you might think. The problem isn’t stack-based languages; I am fluent in PostScript (another stack-based language) and I’ve written dedicated stack-based languages. I’ve read Starting Forth and Thinking Forth, two classic Forth books, and I consider myself familiar with the language. Over the years, I have used somewhere around a dozen versions of Forth for almost as many platforms, and have written a number of Forth programs. By most definitions you would think that I “get” Forth.

But that conviction is shaken upon encountering dedicated Forth programmers. Forth may no longer be a major player on the desktop but it is still widely used in embedded systems. Forth programmers are always so adamant about their improved productivity (some say by a factor of ten!) that I begin to wonder if there is some key lesson I am missing.

I’ve noticed that Lisp programmers have similar convictions about the incredible productivity of Lisp programming. I’ve wondered before if Forth and Lisp are actually two sides of the same coin, even though they bear no obvious resemblances. Both languages are firmly committed to their paradigm of choice (the stack for Forth and the list for Lisp) and both have programmers who are strongly dedicated to their chosen language.

* * *

I’ve often thought that a stack-based language, such as a subset of Forth, could have been an ideal scripting language for web browsers. Parsing a stack language is trivial compared to other types of languages and much faster. A well-written threaded stack language can achieve speeds comparable to assembly language, much faster than an ordinary scripting language. A stack language can be easily made to operate within a security model, essential for any language intended to run in a web browser, just by constraining the legal operations.

On the negative side, stack languages have never caught on with most programmers. Many newer processor optimizations work against stack languages, so their performance advantages relative to other languages have diminished with time. Also, just-in-time compilers techniques, such as those used in modern JavaScript interpreters, have largely offset those potential speed advantages. Still, I’m surprised no one ever pursued that line of development.

In addition to job losses of 650 people, they plan to close five language services completely and end radio programs in seven languages, focusing on online content only. The BBC World Service is also beginning "a phased reduction from most short wave and medium wave distribution of remaining radio services." This will include shutting down their popular 648 kHz mediumwave transmitter, which can be heard in much of Europe. It will also mean stopping English language shortwave broadcasts to Russia and limiting broadcasts to Asia and Africa to two hours a day. Considering the political climate in Russia, this seems like an odd time to be ending broadcasts there.]]> The BBC has finally issued a press release outlining the cuts they plan for the BBC World Service in order meet the government’s mandatory 16% budget reduction and those cuts seem pretty drastic.

In addition to job losses of 650 people, they plan to close five language services completely and end radio programs in seven languages, focusing on online content only. The BBC World Service is also beginning "a phased reduction from most short wave and medium wave distribution of remaining radio services." This will include shutting down their popular 648 kHz mediumwave transmitter, which can be heard in much of Europe. It will also mean stopping English language shortwave broadcasts to Russia and limiting broadcasts to Asia and Africa to two hours a day. Considering the political climate in Russia, this seems like an odd time to be ending broadcasts there.

It also sounds as though there will be even more emphasis on news, with two fewer non-news shows per day. This will mean the end of the programs Politics UK, Europe Today, World Of Music, Something Understood, Letter From…., and Crossing Continents. Considering that Crossing Continents and Something Understood derive from the domestic BBC Radio 4, I’m not sure why ending their broadcast will save much money.

The BBC estimates these changes will cause their weekly listenership to drop by 30 million people (out of an audience of 180 million), but unspecified "investments in new services" are predicted to offset those losses.

I’ve always felt that when the BBC World Service ended shortwave broadcasts to North America back in 2001, it marked the beginning of the end of shortwave listening in the United States. The BBC claims that rebroadcasts on FM stations have actually increased the United States audience since that time and that’s probably true, even though I think the type of listening is completely different. The BBC World Service used to offer all kinds of different programs, not just news, but music, dramas, comedies, soap operas, and even readings from books. Now it’s almost all news, and apparently there will be even more of that in the future.

Deutsche Welle’s new focus will be FM broadcasts in target areas, which include Asia, Africa, Arab countries, Iran, and Latin America. In another big change, Deutsche Welle will no longer target German expatriates. It also sounds as though the German government will have more of a role in keeping Deutsche Welle’s output compatible with German foreign policy.]]> Deutsche Welle, the German international broadcaster that has been operating since 1953, has been ordered by the German government to cut expenses. Deutsche Welle has prepared a 400 page report detailing plans to tighten its focus by dropping shortwave and reducing mediumwave (what is known as AM in the United States) broadcasts. For more details, here is a Deutsche Presse-Agentur story and also a Deutsche Welle press release (in German).

Deutsche Welle’s new focus will be FM broadcasts in target areas, which include Asia, Africa, Arab countries, Iran, and Latin America. In another big change, Deutsche Welle will no longer target German expatriates. It also sounds as though the German government will have more of a role in keeping Deutsche Welle’s output compatible with German foreign policy.

The notion of an international broadcaster being forced to reduce costs is hardly news. Dropping shortwave broadcasts as part of cost reduction is also not a new idea. (Deutsche Welle already dropped English and German shortwave broadcasts to North America some time ago.) But no longer broadcasting to expatriates does surprise me. That used to be one of the biggest functions of international broadcasting and one of the reasons for its existence.

I also wonder about foreign policy promotion, an idea popular with politicians but rarely with listeners. One of Deutsche Welle’s stated goals is to “promote understanding of Germany as an independent nation with its roots in European culture and as a liberal, democratic, constitutional state based on the rule of law.” Done properly, promoting Germany’s foreign policy interests could be compatible with that.

But going too far down the road of foreign policy promotion road might threaten Deutsche Welle’s reputation for journalistic integrity. After all, who tunes into a radio station to hear more about German foreign policy?

One thing is for certain, these are troubling times for international broadcasters.

The obvious solution is to download the latest version of the Windows software development kit (SDK) from Microsoft. The documentation for the current version of the SDK (v7.1) describes it as supporting Visual Studio 2005. But the SDK configuration tool which is necessary to configure Visual Studio 2005 doesn't work with it, describing Visual Studio 2005 as "not a supported scenario." So how do you configure Visual Studio 2005 with Windows SDK v7.1 if the configuration tool won't do it?

The trick is to set the configuration paths manually. Visual Studio paths can be changed in the menus under Tools, Options..., VC++ Directories.]]> Despite its age, I think Microsoft Visual Studio 2005 is quite a useful tool. It works well for native C++ Windows development and I prefer its user interface to later versions. But one problem is that it doesn’t support the newer Windows 7 headers. This makes software development using Windows 7 features rather difficult.

The obvious solution is to download the latest version of the Windows software development kit (SDK) from Microsoft. The documentation for the current version of the SDK (v7.1) describes it as supporting Visual Studio 2005. But the SDK configuration tool which is necessary to configure Visual Studio 2005 doesn’t work with it, describing Visual Studio 2005 as "not a supported scenario." So how do you configure Visual Studio 2005 with Windows SDK v7.1 if the configuration tool won’t do it?

The trick is to set the configuration paths manually. Visual Studio paths can be changed in the menus under Tools, Options…, VC++ Directories.

On my system running 64-bit Windows 7, I added the following paths to the top of Executable files:
C:\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft Visual Studio 10.0\Common7\IDE
C:\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft Visual Studio 10.0\VC\Bin\
C:\Program Files\Microsoft SDKs\Windows\v7.1\bin

I added these paths to Include files:
C:\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft Visual Studio 10.0\VC\include
C:\Program Files\Microsoft SDKs\Windows\v7.1\Include
C:\Program Files\Microsoft SDKs\Windows\v7.1\Include\gl
C:\Program Files\Microsoft SDKs\Windows\v7.1\VC\Include

And this path to Library files:
C:\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft Visual Studio 10.0\VC\lib

And these under Exclude directories:
C:\Program Files\Microsoft SDKs\Windows\v7.1\Include
C:\Program Files\Microsoft SDKs\Windows\v7.1\Include\gl
C:\Program Files\Microsoft SDKs\Windows\v7.1\VC\Include

I had expected that more configuration would be required, but that was all it took. I am now using the newest versions of Visual C++ and the Standard Template Library with Visual Studio 2005.

The one problem I have found is that Intellisense doesn’t work with the new headers, even if you change the Source files paths (the source of the Intellisense information). I don’t know if the Intellisense format has changed since Visual Studio 2005, or if there is a configuration problem.

Although this idea makes sense at first, it has a few historical problems. It is true that any phonograph record you can buy today (assuming you can find one) will play on any record player you can buy. But this is the result of a long process that spanned almost a century.]]> Recently, a commentator posed an interesting question. Why, he wondered, are there so many computer video and audio formats? Why can’t everyone involved take a lesson from the phonograph record? After all, there is only one type of phonograph record and it can be played by any record player.

Although this idea makes sense at first, it has a few historical problems. It is true that any phonograph record you can buy today (assuming you can find one) will play on any record player you can buy. But this is the result of a long process that spanned almost a century.

When Thomas Edison invented his phonograph in 1877, his prototype stored sound on tin foil or waxed tape. When the phonograph became popular with the public in the 1880′s, the “records” it played were wax cylinders. Disc records, what we think of today as records, edged out wax cylinders in popularity by 1910. But wax cylinders were still being sold as late as 1929, and surprisingly, there are still a few companies selling them today.

When it came to the disc records, different players rotated them at different speeds. Some early players went as high as 160 rpm, but manufacturers standardized on 78 rpm (actually 78.2608 rpm) in 1925. 78 rpm replaced other common speeds such as 80 or 82 rpm.

The first “modern” record, playable on a record player you can buy today, dates back to 1948. That was when Columbia Records standardized the 33⅓ rpm format, although there were unsuccessful attempts at using that speed dating back to 1930. In 1949, RCA Victor came out with the 45 rpm record, the other speed supported by a modern record player. Those two competing speeds battled for consumer favor for several years in a dispute that became known as “The War of the Speeds.” The end result was that most record players supported multiple speeds using a switch to change between 45 rpm, 33⅓ rpm, and 78 rpm (and sometimes the rarely used 16⅔ rpm). Support for 78 rpm disappeared after a while, but 45 rpm and 33⅓ rpm remained the standards until the compact disc began to replace the phonograph record in 1982.

Looking at the history, it is clear that it took over 70 years before the modern standards were created. I don’t like to predict history, but I think it is a safe bet that it might take another 70 years before the one definitive video and audio format is standardized.

The advertisement (from 1964 not 1968) refers to a nearly forgotten chapter in television history:  a pay television service sold by Subscription Television, Inc., more commonly known as STV. STV was headed by Sylvester (Pat) Weaver, previously the chairman at NBC. Weaver was responsible for many television milestones at NBC, including the creation of the “Today” show and “participation advertising,” the practice of networks selling advertising within shows. In the early 1960’s, he became interested in creating a pay television service to potentially rival the networks. STV began wiring up houses in San Francisco and Los Angeles with plans to ultimately expand the service nationwide.]]> This curious advertisement has been floating around since 1964. Titled “Keep TV Free,” it paints a dire picture of a future with only pay television and asks the citizens of California to become involved. So what was happening in California at that time deemed so threatening to free television?

The advertisement (from 1964 not 1968) refers to a nearly forgotten chapter in television history:  a pay television service sold by Subscription Television, Inc., more commonly known as STV. STV was headed by Sylvester (Pat) Weaver, previously the chairman at NBC. Weaver was responsible for many television milestones at NBC, including the creation of the “Today” show and “participation advertising,” the practice of networks selling advertising within shows. In the early 1960’s, he became interested in creating a pay television service to potentially rival the networks. STV began wiring up houses in San Francisco and Los Angeles with plans to ultimately expand the service nationwide.

The STV system sounds as though it was quite ambitious. It consisted of three channels with entirely original programming. In modern language, I think it would be called a pay-per-view rather than pay-TV service, with most users expected to pay between $10 and $20 a month for programming ($68 to $136 in inflation adjusted dollars). According to a 1964 LIFE article, the biggest draws were baseball games from the San Francisco Giants and the Los Angeles Dodgers. Other highlights included an education series called Primer for Moderns, concerts by Arthur Rubinstein and Van Cliburn, a children’s show called Cable Kindergarten, and a recording of the off-Broadway play The Trojan Women. There were also plans for movies created exclusively for STV.

Projections were for 40,000 subscribers upon launch, although actual totals turned out to be closer to 9,400. But the biggest unexpected obstacle was the concerted opposition from owners of movie theaters and television stations. A 1964 TIME magazine article described some of the criticisms:

The argument they offered was that pay-TV customers would one day find themselves paying to see shows they now see for nothing. And carrying the argument a bit farther, they also warned that pay TV could become just as commercial as contemporary network television.

(It’s interesting to note that both of these scenarios did eventually happen, just decades later.)

Through groups such as “Citizens Committee for Free TV,” they organized a very effective campaign to rally support for a California ballot measure banning pay television. Using advertisements, such as the one above intended for movie theaters, they gathered enough signatures to place the measure on the ballot.  Proposition 15 passed by a two to one margin on November 3, 1964 and STV was forced to shut down.

STV promptly sued to overturn Proposition 15. The California Supreme Court eventually ruled Proposition 15 unconstitutional in March 1966, calling it “an abridgment of the free speech guaranties of state and federal Constitutions.” But STV was long out of money by that time and the service never resumed.

I think this quote from television producer Sheldon Leonard best summed up the problem with STV:

I think the people at STV are operating under two erroneous assumptions: 1) that they will find new lodes of talent, and 2) that the television audience wants something essentially different than it is getting now.

Successful pay television would have to wait until the creation of HBO in November 1972.

The initial reports on domestic radio were pretty sketchy. In years past, I would have turned to shortwave for further information. Propagation would have limited my choices, but Radio Australia and the BBC World Service would have been good choices during the day and Radio New Zealand International at night.

I also don’t know of any product that has been more widely rumored before its official release. Apple officially announced the iPad on January 27, 2010, but the rumors were flying months before that. Some of the rumors seemed unlikely (a three-dimensional user interface), some were bizarre (built-in solar panels), but some were fairly accurate (an accompanying ebook store).]]> Unless you have been living under a rock for the past few months then you undoubtedly have heard about the iPad, Apple’s new handheld device. Given the widespread media fascination with the iPad, I can’t think of any other way to have avoided hearing about it.

I also don’t know of any product that has been more widely rumored before its official release. Apple officially announced the iPad on January 27, 2010, but the rumors had been flying for months before that. Some of the rumors seemed unlikely (a three-dimensional user interface), some were bizarre (built-in solar panels), but some were fairly accurate (an accompanying ebook store).

I can’t help but wonder if some of those rumors came from Apple itself. Apple has always maintained a tight control of its image and managing information is an important part of that. A few pieces of carefully leaked information could help point the discussion in a new direction.

For example, one of the most widely reported rumors was that the device would cost around $1000. Many people were dismayed by this relatively high price. Of course, those same people were delighted when the real price turned out to be just $499 for the lowest configuration.

All the excessive hype may have partially backfired though, considering the number of people now predicting that the iPad will fail in the marketplace. After the iPhone was introduced, I remember listening to one “expert” explain exactly all the features it was lacking and why it would fail. His arguments made perfect sense, but all he ended up proving was how hard it is to predict the future. My bet is still on the iPad.

I think this is a shame because the Flight Simulator was one of the oldest personal computer programs still being actively developed. Although some sources (including Microsoft) state that the first version was for the IBM PC in 1982, the program actually dates back further than that.