When I discovered that Node.js was built using the V8 JavaScript engine, I thought:
Great, web scraping will be easier as the page
will be rendered like in the browser, with a
"native" DOM supporting XPath and any AJAX calls on
the page executed.
Why doesn't it have a native DOM when it uses the same JavaScript engine as Chrome?
Why doesn't it have a mode to run JavaScript in retrieved pages?
What am I not understanding about JavaScript engines vs the engine in a web browser?
Many thanks!
The DOM is the DOM, and the JavaScript implementation is simply a separate entity. The DOM represents a set of facilities that a web browser exposes to the JavaScript environment. There's no requirement however that any particular JavaScript runtime will have any facilities exposed via the global object.
What Node.js is is a stand-alone JavaScript environment completely independent of a web browser. There's no intrinsic link between web browsers and JavaScript; the DOM is not part of the JavaScript language or specification or anything.
I use the old Rhino Java-based JavaScript implementation in my Java-based web server. That environment also has nothing at all to do with any DOM. It's my own application that's responsible for populating the global object with facilities to do what I need it to be able to do, and it's not a DOM.
Note that there are projects like jsdom if you want a virtual DOM in your Node project. Because of its very nature as a server-side platform, a DOM is a facility that Node can do without and still make perfect sense for a wide variety of server applications. That's not to say that a DOM might not be useful to some people, but it's just not in the same category of services as things like process control, I/O, networking, database interop, and so on.
There may be some "official" answer to the question "why?" out there, but it's basically just the business of those who maintain Node (the Node Foundation now). If some intrepid developer out there decides that Node should ship by default with a set of modules to support a virtual DOM, and successfully works and works and makes that happen, then Node will have a DOM.
P.S: When reading this question I was also wondering if V8 (node.js is built on top of this) had a DOM
Why when it uses the same JS engine as Chrome doesn't it have a native
DOM?
But I searched google and found Google's V8 page which recites the following:
JavaScript is most commonly used for client-side scripting in a
browser, being used to manipulate Document Object Model (DOM) objects
for example. The DOM is not, however, typically provided by the
JavaScript engine but instead by a browser. The same is true of
V8—Google Chrome provides the DOM. V8 does however provide all the
data types, operators, objects and functions specified in the ECMA
standard.
node.js uses V8 and not Google Chrome.
Likewise, why doesn't it have a mode to run JS in retrieved pages?
I also think we don't really need it that bad. Ryan Dahl created node.js as one man (single programmer). Maybe now he (his team) will develop this, but I was already extremely amazed by the amount of code he produced (crazy). He wanted to make a non-blocking easy/efficient library, which I think he did a mighty good job at.
But then again, another developer created a module which is pretty good and actively developed (today) at https://github.com/tmpvar/jsdom.
What am I not understanding about Javascript engines vs the engine in
a web browser? :)
Those are different things as is hopefully clear from the quote above.
The Document Object Model (DOM in short) is a programming interface for HTML and XML documents and it represents the page so that programs can change the document structure, style, and content. More on this subject.
The necessary distinction between client-side (browser) and server-side (Node.js) and their main goals:
Client-side: accessing and displaying information of the web
Server-side: providing stable and reliable ways to deliver web information
Why is there no DOM in Node.js be default?
By default, Node.js doesn't have access, nor have any knowledge about the actual DOM in your own browser. Node.js just delivers the data, that will be used by your own browser to process and render the whole website, the DOM included. The server provides the data to your browser to use and process. That is the intended way.
Why wouldn't you want to access the DOM in Node.js?
Accessing your browser's actual DOM using Node.js would be just simply out of the goal of the server. Your own browser's role is to display the data coming from the server. However it is certainly possible and there are multiple solutions in different level of depths and varieties to pre-render, manipulate or change the DOM using AJAX calls. We'll see what future trends will bring.
Why would you want to access the DOM in Node.js?
By default, you shouldn't access your own, actual DOM (at least some data of it) using Node.js. Client-side and server-side are separated in terms of role, functionality, and responsibility based on years of experience and knowledge. Although there are several situations, where there are solid reasons to do so:
Gathering usage data (A/B testing, UI/UX efficiency and feedback)
Headless testing (Development, automation, web-scraping)
How can you access the DOM in Node.js?
jsdom: pure-JavaScript implementation, good for testing your own DOM/browser-related project
cheerio: great solution if you like/often use jQuery
puppeteer: Google's own way to provide headless testing using Google Chrome
own solution (your possible future project link here)
Although these solutions do not provide a way to access your browser's own, actual DOM by default, but you can create a project to send some form of data about your DOM to the server, then use/render/manipulate that data based on your needs.
...and yes, web-scraping and web development in terms of tools and utilities became more sophisticated and certainly easier in several fields.
node.js chose not to include it in their standard library. For any functionality, there is an inevitable tradeoff between comprehensiveness, scalability, and maintainability.
That doesn't mean it's not potentially useful. There is at least one JavaScript DOM implementation intended for NodeJS (among other CommonJS implementations).
You seem to have a flawed assumption that V8 and the DOM are inextricably related, that's not the case. The DOM is actually handled by Webkit, V8 doesn't handle the DOM, it handles Javascript calls to the DOM. Don't let this discourage you, Node.js has carved out a significant niche in the realtime server market, but don't let anybody tell you it's just for servers. Node makes it possible to build almost anything with JavaScript.
It is possible to do what you're talking about. For example there is the very good jsdom library if you really need access to the DOM, and node-htmlparser, there are also some really good scraping libraries that take advantage of these like apricot.
2018 answer: mainly for historical reasons, but this may change in future.
Historically, very little DOM manipulation was done on the server. Addiotinally, as other answers allude, the JS stdlib and the DOM are seperate libraries - if you're using node, for, say, Unix scripting, then HTMLElement and NodeList etc aren't really relevant to that.
However: server-side DOM manipulation is now a very common part of delivering web apps. Web servers need to understand the structure of pages, and, if asked to render a resource as HTML, deliver HTML content that reflects the initial state of a web application. This means web apps load much faster than if the server simply delivers a stub page and has the browsers then do the work of filling in the real content. Currently this is done with JSDom and similar, but in the same way node has Request and Response objects built in, having DOM functions maintained as part of the stdlib would help with this task.
Javascript != browser. Javascript as a language is not tied to browsers; node.js is simply an implementation of Javascript that is intended for servers, not browsers. Hence no DOM.
If you read DOM as 'linked objects immediately accessible from my script' then the answer 'it does, but it's very different from set of objects available from web document script'. The main reason is that node is 'evented I/O for V8', not 'HTML tree objects for V8'
Node is a runtime environment, it does not render a DOM like a browser.
Because there isn't a DOM. DOM stands for Document Object Model. There is no document in Node, so not DOM to manipulate it. That is definitively a browser thing.
You can use a library like cheerio though which gives you some simple DOM manipulation.
Node is server-level JavaScript. It's just the language applied to a basic system API, more like C++ or Java.
It seems people have answered 'why' but not how. A quick answer of how is that in a web browser, a document object is exposed (hence DOM , document object model). On windows this object is called document object. You can refer to this page and look at the methods it exposes which are for handling HTML documents like createElement. I don't use node.js or haven't done COM programming in a while but I'd imagine you could use DOM in node.js by simply calling the COM object IHTMLDocument3. Of course for other platforms like Mac OS X or Linux you would probably have to use something from their OS api. This should allow you to easily build a webpage server side using DOM, or to scrape incoming web pages.
Node.js is for serverside programming. There is no DOM to be rendered in the server.
1) What does it mean for it to have a D ocument O bject M odel? There's no document to represent.
2) You're most of the time you're not retrieving pages. You can, but most Node apps probably won't be.
3) Without a document and a browser, Javascript is just another programming language. So you may ask why there isn't a DOM in C# or Java
Today crypto libraries for JavaScript exists sjcl and hence there may be the situation that
a password/key/secret/sensitivedata is stored somewhere in a variable in JavaScript.
I do not want to risk that this sensitve data is leaked/disclosed and hence I would very much like to know if there is a way to reliably wipe a variable in Javascript so that the memory used by the JavaScript Engine will not have any remaining info about he data? I would for instance not want to rely on some GC to wipe the data lazily etc.
An answer might feature an example code that kills/wipes a variable and also an explanation when (and if there are differences on what JavaScript implementation Browsers type /Nodejs) it makes sence to trust that the data has been deleted?
Else if the task is impossible I would appreciate a explanation why this is so as well and also accept this as an answer
The goal is not to protect the webpage user from accessing the script variable (this cannot be done I guess). The goal is more to guarantee that the memory of the javascript engine does not keep shadow/cached copies of the data, after the point necessary. I do want to have the data be gone so that no-one (attacker software) can get the secret data via looking at the memory been associated with the Javascript Variables.
JavaScript is garbage collected. In addition, there is no mechanism for deterministic resource management built in. You can make one, but the resource would have to be external.
Even if you build such a mechanism (with a C++ external module in Node for example), engines don't give you strong guarantees on when their copy of the memory is cleared. You would have to manually assign to the same variable parts of the resource data and replace it with junk yourself. That would likely work but there is still no guarantee at the engine level.
This is simply not a problem JavaScript implementations are built to do well at this point. There is no SecureString. That said - smart people are working on variants of ECMAScript (the JS standard) that give you much stronger guarantees. That's a good first step towards addressing the problem (but no such guarantee yet).
I don't even want to get started on browsers, where browser extensions can easily get better hooks than you and write over Function.prototype.call and hook on every function call, JavaScript has quite powerful AOP capabilities built in, for worse in this instance.
One possible solution would be to run the whole program within a VM that uses encrypted RAM, but I'm against rolling your own crypto like that. Generally, an attacker should not have access to your program's RAM in the first place, if they do, they can install a browser extension :)
We all know the great benefits that js libraries such as jquery and mootools etc. have contributed to web browsers and web development. These libraries are now included in a lot if not most of all websites.
So, I was wondering why none of the current javascript engines just include these functionalities inside the javascript engine itself. No doubt this has even more benefits such as performance, no need for external loading, standardisation (and its own benefits), etc.
I realize that this would probably only benefit web browsers and alike, though there must be also many uses beyond just web browsers, but for the sake of argument, one could just add such engine built in functionalities in an optional engine / ECMASCript -and I am guessing the word here- component (with emphasis on optional), that could then be enabled or added only in the engines inside web browsers.
Does anyone know this or has more info on this all?
My second questions is: If we, the community, would decide this to be a great progress for the future, where can we propose/ask such a thing and what else can we do to make this happen?
(Some of you must realize the trouble that some feature cost to be included in some projects, such as the years to decade old feature requests voted on by zillion users and never got through because of ...well..let's not be ungrateful to developers and leave these dots for your own imagination. So I'd rather have that the community focus this wish on 1 place only nad maybe the answer to this second question is the start of it?)
ECMAScript only intends to standardize the minimum amount of language and support library necessary to build these higher level libraries you're describing. Also, things like jQuery work on the Document Object Model provided by the browser code, which isn't even part of the ECMAScript standard -- ECMAScript just knows about DOM nodes in the general category of "foreign objects". The SpiderMonkey engine implements just the JavaScript language and its small standard library, which is then embedded into the larger Firefox browser environment.
So, to answer the question more directly: is it possible to give the JavaScript engine intimate knowledge (and perhaps an implementation) of a user-level library like jQuery? Yes, although you'd be breaking a lot of componentization in the browser, as you mention. Will anybody actually do it? Most likely not, because JavaScript engines just implement the core of what's necessary to build higher level libraries, like jQuery. Everybody is happy with them living outside of the JS engine, and a nice property of JavaScript is that you can just load the library in as you need it -- the source is freely available.
In fact, as a further note, JS engines are doing more and more to push ECMAScript standard library code out of C++-implementation land and into something called "self-hosted builtins", which enables functions like Array.indexOf to be implemented in JavaScript itself (i.e., with a for loop and comparisons). This exposes more JavaScript code to the natural process of optimizing JIT compilers, instead of having to deal specially with calls into native C++ implementation code.
I was thinking about this today and I realized I don't have a clear picture here.
Here are some statements I think to be true (please correct me if I'm wrong):
the DOM is a collection of interfaces specified by W3C.
when parsing HTML source code, the browser creates a DOM tree which has nodes that implement DOM interfaces.
the ECMAScript spec has no reference of browser host objects (DOM, BOM, HTML5 APIs etc.).
how the DOM is actually implemented depends on browser internals and is probably different among most of them.
modern JS interpreters use JIT to improve the code performance and translate it to bytecode
I am curious about what happens behind the scenes when I call document.getElementById('foo'). Does the call get delegated to browser native code by the interpreter or does the browser have JS implementations of all host objects? Do you know about any optimizations they do in regard to this?
I read this overview of browser internals but it didn't mention anything about this. I will look through the Chrome and FF source when I have time, but I thought about asking here first. :)
All of your bullet points are correct, except:
modern JS interpreters use JIT to improve the code performance and translate it to bytecode
should be "...and translate it to native code". SpiderMonkey (the JS engine in Firefox) worked as a bytecode interpreter for a long time before the current JS speed arms race.
On Mozilla's JS-to-DOM bridge:
The host objects are typically implemented in C++, though there is an experiment underway to implement DOM in JS. So when a web page calls document.getElementById('foo'), the actual work of retrieving the element by its ID is done in a C++ method, as hsivonen noted.
The specific way the underlying C++ implementation gets called depends on the API and also changed over time (note that I'm not involved in the development, so might be wrong about some details, here's a blog post by jst, who was actually involved in creating much of this code):
At the lowest level every JS engine provides APIs to define host objects. For example, the browser can call JS_DefineFunctions (as demonstrated in the SpiderMonkey User Guide) to let the engine know that whenever script calls a function with the specified name, a provided C callback should be called. Same for other aspects of the host objects (e.g. enumeration, property getters/setters, etc.)
For the core ECMAScript functionality and in some tricky DOM cases the JS engine/the browser uses these APIs directly to define host objects and their behaviors, but it requires a lot of common boilerplate code for e.g. checking parameter types, converting them to the appropriate C++ types, error handling etc.
For reasons I won't go into, let's say historically, Mozilla made heavy use of XPCOM for many of its objects, including much of the DOM. One feature of XPCOM is its binding to JS called XPConnect. Among other things, XPConnect can take an interface definition in IDL (such as nsIDOMDocument; or more precisely its compiled representation), expose an object with the specified properties to the script, and later, when a script calls getElementById, perform the necessary parameter checks/conversions and route the call directly to a C++ method (nsDocument::GetElementById(const nsAString& aId, nsIDOMElement** aReturn))
The way XPConnect worked was quite inefficient: it registered generic functions as callbacks to be executed when a script accesses a host object, and these generic functions figured out what they needed to do in every particular case dynamically. This post about quickstubs walks you through one example.
"Quick stubs" mentioned in the previous link is a way to optimize JS->C++ calls time by trading some code size for it: instead of always using generic C++ functions that know how to make any kind of call, the specialized code is automatically generated at the Firefox build time for a pre-defined list of "hot" calls.
Later on the JIT (tracemonkey at that time) was taught to generate the code calling C++ methods as part of the native code generated for "hot" paths in JS. I'm not sure how the newer JITs (jaegermonkey) work in this regard.
With "paris bindings" the objects are exposed to webpage JS without any reliance on XPConnect, instead generating all the necessary glue JSClass code based on WebIDL (instead of XPCOM-era IDL). See also posts by developers who worked on this: jst and khuey. Also see How is the web-exposed DOM implemented?
I'm fuzzy on details of the three last points in particular, so take it with a grain of salt.
The most recent improvements are listed as dependencies of bug 622298, but I don't follow them closely.
JS calls to DOM methods like getElementById cause the JS engine to call into the C++ code that implements the DOM. For example, in Firefox, the call ends up in nsDocument::GetElementById(const nsAString& aId, nsIDOMElement** aReturn).
As you can see, Firefox maintains a hashtable that maps ids to elements in C++ as an optimization in this case, so it doesn't walk the whole DOM tree looking for the id.
The DOM is implemented as a language-independent library pretty much in all major browser implementations, which means it's in a different library from the Javascript engine. For example in IE, the JS engine is implemented in jscript.dll while the DOM is implemented in mshtml.dll. Safari has Nitro(JS) and WebCore(DOM). Chrome has V8(JS) and WebCore(DOM), and Firefox has SpiderMonkey/TraceMonkey(JS) and Gecko(DOM).
What this means is that anytime your JS has to access the DOM, it has to reach over to the DOM library - which is inherently slow because of all the marshaling that has to take place. An analogy that has been used is 2 pieces of land connected by a toll bridge, any time you touch the DOM, you must cross over the bridge and cross back - paying a performance toll.
References
Video: Building High Performance Web Applications and Sites
Book: High Performance Javascript (Chapter 3 on the DOM)
By now, most mainstream browsers have started integrating optimizing JIT compilers to their JavaScript interpreters/virtual machines. That's good for everyone. Now, I'd be hard-pressed to know exactly which optimizations they do perform and how to best take advantage of them. What are references on optimizations in each of the major JavaScript engines?
Background:
I'm working on a compiler that generates JavaScript from a higher-level & safer language (shameless plug: it's called OPA and it's very cool) and, given the size of applications I'm generating, I'd like my JavaScript code to be as fast and as memory-efficient as possible. I can handle high-level optimizations, but I need to know more about which runtime transformations are performed, so as to know which low-level code will produce best results.
One example, from the top of my mind: the language I'm compiling will soon integrate support for laziness. Do JIT engines behave well with lazy function definitions?
This article series discusses the optimisations of V8. In summary:
It generates native machine code - not bytecode (V8 Design Elements)
Precise garbage collection (Wikipedia)
Inline caching of called methods (Wikipedia)
Storing class transition information so that objects with the same properties are grouped together (V8 Design Elements)
The first two points might not help you very much in this situation. The third might show insight into getting things cached together. The last might help you create objects with same properties so they use the same hidden classes.
This blog post discusses some of the optimisations of SquirrelFish Extreme:
Bytecode optimizations
Polymorphic inline cache (like V8)
Context threaded JIT (introduction of native machine code generation, like V8)
Regular expression JIT
TraceMonkey is optimised via tracing. I don't know much about it but it looks like it detects the type of a variable in some "hot code" (code run in loops often) and creates optimised code based on what the type of that variable is. If the type of the variable changes, it must recompile the code - based off of this, I'd say you should stay away from changing the type of a variable within a loop.
I found an additional resource:
What does V8 do with that loop?