We Keep Coding

Can I use JavaScript instead of PHP, replacing Apache with Node.js?

Can I write my web-site only in JavaScript being sure that my code is concealed from anyone? In this respect, is Node.js, like Apache, can be given access to through an Internet-provider?

The answer to both of your questions is yes.
Node.js can completely replace Apache (assuming you are willing to re-write all of your PHP as JavaScript). If you have your Apache running in reverse-proxy mode between your server and client, you can even handle some requests in Node.JS while handing others in PHP. This will allow you to maintain original functionality while changing the code out, and also allow PHP to handle more mundane tasks.
While you cannot prevent raw JavaScript from being read through any means of obfuscation, you can prevent people from reading your code by note making use of standard JavaScript at all. You can use a NativeExtension for Node to add an extension handler for encrypted JavaScript files:
require.extensions[".jse"] = function (m) {
m.exports = MyNativeExtension.decrypt(fs.readFileSync(m.filename));
};
require("YourCode.jse");
This will convert your JavaScript code to a .jse, which you would then package for production. Considering the encryption is done inside the native extension, the encryption key wouldn't be revealed.
Hope this helps! :)

Yes, you definitely can. It may, however, take a while to transition existing code, and if this is for a corporate institution, you'll have to ask your coworkers and your boss/supervisor. Good luck, and remember, always document your code in JavaScript (no types) all languages.
NodeJS is much faster: http://www.hostingadvice.com/blog/comparing-node-js-vs-php-performance/
Many more libraries: http://npmjs.org
Only need one language for everything

Comparing PHP with another technology like Node.js which is meant for an entirely different type of task, comparer must mention the difference of use-case/context in which one is suitable over others.
Let's talk about in terms of a different area of execution because we can not Disgrace any of them and both have its own priority.
If you talk about in terms of Application Domain.
PHP :
CMS (Content Management Systems) like WordPress, Drupal also use PHP which makes it possible to be used in creating blogs, websites, e-commerce sites, etc.
Used in developing CPU-intensive applications like meteorology applications and scientific applications.
should be used in applications in which the client does not have to interact with the server again and again
PHP 7 is based on the PHPNG engine that speeds up PHP applications more than the previous PHP interpreter (Zend Engine 2.0). Thanks to PHPNG, your apps see up to the 2x faster performance and 50% better memory consumption than PHP 5.6.
NodeJs:
Nodejs is ideal for developing highly scalable server-side solutions because of its non-blocking I/O, and event-driven model.
Used massively in Real-time applications like chat applications, blogs, video streaming applications.
Used in developing single-page applications like resume portfolios, individual websites.
Node.js should be used for the applications which require a lot of interaction between client and server.
For some tasks, Node.js may be faster than the “standard” web server with PHP because it runs as a single thread with non-blocking IO for each connection, hence there is no memory overrun. Due to this, Node.js is useful when there is a need to process data in real-time (chats, games, video, big data streams without logic)
PHP is Still alive and he has learned its lessons from Node.JS
ReactPHP enables developers to write PHP-based socket server to process requests constantly as well as Node.js does it (yes, Node.js is faster, but the fact is that PHP can also do it). The same thing with Workers (the classes responsible for running asynchronous jobs and synchronizing their results) or Amp (libraries that are used for writing non-blocking asynchronous code). Hence, it is easy to create long-running processes using PHP. Additionally, there are a lot of tools for supporting and managing these processes (such as supervisord).
So, the same tasks may be performed either with PHP or with Node.js. The question “what tool to use” is a question of personal preferences. you can use Node.js for tasks involving big data flows and PHP for tasks involving complex logic, high-load tasks, for dealing with external utilities, applications, and OS.
From the scalability perspective, there are no big differences between PHP and Node.js, it is more important to consider the project’s architecture.
Dayle Rees (a Laravel Framework contributor and developer): For a long time PHP was the butt of many language jokes, but I honestly feel that it’s becoming not only a popular language but a powerful one. PHP7 is great. The speed boost is one thing, but having optional support for full type hinting is a game changer. We’ve also got modern tools like Laravel and Composer, breathing new life into the language and its supporting community. With this in mind, I think it’s unlikely that Laravel will move from PHP. I think it’s more likely to gain further integration with front-end tools to provide a complete application building platform. That’s where I see it heading in terms of future expansion. I’m sure the Node will continue to excel when dealing with microservices and threaded applications.
The most important and most awaited News from PHP is, PHP is scheduled to receive a Just In Time (JIT) compiler in its next major version PHP-8 (most probably in sep-2021).This is going to boom the php and it breaks all his limitation due to JIT.
Wrap up
To wrap up Both have some pros, both have some cons but the amazing thing is both are created by intellects to make the web development better. While selecting the technology the question shouldn’t be which one is better but which one can serve your project needs in a better way. Understanding your project and business logic can give you a clear idea about selecting the right technology for your project.Moreover, one more important thing to consider is the skills and proficiency of the developers using the technology, how they use them and apply to the project.

Is there any difference between making DOM on the server/client side? (speed perspective) [duplicate]

I've done some web-based projects, and most of the difficulties I've met with (questions, confusions) could be figured out with help. But I still have an important question, even after asking some experienced developers: When functionality can be implemented with both server-side code and client-side scripting (JavaScript), which one should be preferred?
A simple example:
To render a dynamic html page, I can format the page in server-side code (PHP, python) and use Ajax to fetch the formatted page and render it directly (more logic on server-side, less on client-side).
I can also use Ajax to fetch the data (not formatted, JSON) and use client-side scripting to format the page and render it with more processing (the server gets the data from a DB or other source, and returns it to the client with JSON or XML. More logic on client-side and less on server).
So how can I decide which one is better? Which one offers better performance? Why? Which one is more user-friendly?
With browsers' JS engines evolving, JS can be interpreted in less time, so should I prefer client-side scripting?
On the other hand, with hardware evolving, server performance is growing and the cost of sever-side logic will decrease, so should I prefer server-side scripting?
EDIT:
With the answers, I want to give a brief summary.
Pros of client-side logic:
Better user experience (faster).
Less network bandwidth (lower cost).
Increased scalability (reduced server load).
Pros of server-side logic:
Security issues.
Better availability and accessibility (mobile devices and old browsers).
Better SEO.
Easily expandable (can add more servers, but can't make the browser faster).
It seems that we need to balance these two approaches when facing a specific scenario. But how? What's the best practice?
I will use client-side logic except in the following conditions:
Security critical.
Special groups (JavaScript disabled, mobile devices, and others).

In many cases, I'm afraid the best answer is both.
As Ricebowl stated, never trust the client. However, I feel that it's almost always a problem if you do trust the client. If your application is worth writing, it's worth properly securing. If anyone can break it by writing their own client and passing data you don't expect, that's a bad thing. For that reason, you need to validate on the server.
Unfortunately if you validate everything on the server, that often leaves the user with a poor user experience. They may fill out a form only to find that a number of things they entered are incorrect. This may have worked for "Internet 1.0", but people's expectations are higher on today's Internet.
This potentially leaves you writing quite a bit of redundant code, and maintaining it in two or more places (some of the definitions such as maximum lengths also need to be maintained in the data tier). For reasonably large applications, I tend to solve this issue using code generation. Personally I use a UML modeling tool (Sparx System's Enterprise Architect) to model the "input rules" of the system, then make use of partial classes (I'm usually working in .NET) to code generate the validation logic. You can achieve a similar thing by coding your rules in a format such as XML and deriving a number of checks from that XML file (input length, input mask, etc.) on both the client and server tier.
Probably not what you wanted to hear, but if you want to do it right, you need to enforce rules on both tiers.

I tend to prefer server-side logic. My reasons are fairly simple:
I don't trust the client; this may or not be a true problem, but it's habitual
Server-side reduces the volume per transaction (though it does increase the number of transactions)
Server-side means that I can be fairly sure about what logic is taking place (I don't have to worry about the Javascript engine available to the client's browser)
There are probably more -and better- reasons, but these are the ones at the top of my mind right now. If I think of more I'll add them, or up-vote those that come up with them before I do.
Edited, valya comments that using client-side logic (using Ajax/JSON) allows for the (easier) creation of an API. This may well be true, but I can only half-agree (which is why I've not up-voted that answer yet).
My notion of server-side logic is to that which retrieves the data, and organises it; if I've got this right the logic is the 'controller' (C in MVC). And this is then passed to the 'view.' I tend to use the controller to get the data, and then the 'view' deals with presenting it to the user/client. So I don't see that client/server distinctions are necessarily relevant to the argument of creating an API, basically: horses for courses. :)
...also, as a hobbyist, I recognise that I may have a slightly twisted usage of MVC, so I'm willing to stand corrected on that point. But I still keep the presentation separate from the logic. And that separation is the plus point so far as APIs go.

I generally implement as much as reasonable client-side. The only exceptions that would make me go server-side would be to resolve the following:
Trust issues
Anyone is capable of debugging JavaScript and reading password's, etc. No-brainer here.
Performance issues
JavaScript engines are evolving fast so this is becoming less of an issue, but we're still in an IE-dominated world, so things will slow down when you deal with large sets of data.
Language issues
JavaScript is weakly-typed language and it makes a lot of assumptions of your code. This can cause you to employ spooky workarounds in order to get things working the way they should on certain browsers. I avoid this type of thing like the plague.
From your question, it sounds like you're simply trying to load values into a form. Barring any of the issues above, you have 3 options:
Pure client-side
The disadvantage is that your users' loading time would double (one load for the blank form, another load for the data). However, subsequent updates to the form would not require a refresh of the page. Users will like this if there will be a lot of data fetching from the server loading into the same form.
Pure server-side
The advantage is that your page would load with the data. However, subsequent updates to the data would require refreshes to all/significant portions of the page.
Server-client hybrid
You would have the best of both worlds, however you would need to create two data extraction points, causing your code to bloat slightly.
There are trade-offs with each option so you will have to weigh them and decide which one offers you the most benefit.

One consideration I have not heard mentioned was network bandwidth. To give a specific example, an app I was involved with was all done server-side and resulted in 200Mb web page being sent to the client (it was impossible to do less without major major re-design of a bunch of apps); resulting in 2-5 minute page load time.
When we re-implemented this by sending the JSON-encoded data from the server and have local JS generate the page, the main benefit was that the data sent shrunk to 20Mb, resulting in:
HTTP response size: 200Mb+ => 20Mb+ (with corresponding bandwidth savings!)
Time to load the page: 2-5mins => 20 secs (10-15 of which are taken up by DB query that was optimized to hell an further).
IE process size: 200MB+ => 80MB+
Mind you, the last 2 points were mainly due to the fact that server side had to use crappy tables-within-tables tree implementation, whereas going to client side allowed us to redesign the view layer to use much more lightweight page. But my main point was network bandwidth savings.

I'd like to give my two cents on this subject.
I'm generally in favor of the server-side approach, and here is why.
More SEO friendly. Google cannot execute Javascript, therefor all that content will be invisible to search engines
Performance is more controllable. User experience is always variable with SOA due to the fact that you're relying almost entirely on the users browser and machine to render things. Even though your server might be performing well, a user with a slow machine will think your site is the culprit.
Arguably, the server-side approach is more easily maintained and readable.
I've written several systems using both approaches, and in my experience, server-side is the way. However, that's not to say I don't use AJAX. All of the modern systems I've built incorporate both components.
Hope this helps.

I built a RESTful web application where all CRUD functionalities are available in the absence of JavaScript, in other words, all AJAX effects are strictly progressive enhancements.
I believe with enough dedication, most web applications can be designed this way, thus eroding many of the server logic vs client logic "differences", such as security, expandability, raised in your question because in both cases, the request is routed to the same controller, of which the business logic is all the same until the last mile, where JSON/XML, instead of the full page HTML, is returned for those XHR.
Only in few cases where the AJAXified application is so vastly more advanced than its static counterpart, GMail being the best example coming to my mind, then one needs to create two versions and separate them completely (Kudos to Google!).

I know this post is old, but I wanted to comment.
In my experience, the best approach is using a combination of client-side and server-side. Yes, Angular JS and similar frameworks are popular now and they've made it easier to develop web applications that are light weight, have improved performance, and work on most web servers. BUT, the major requirement in enterprise applications is displaying report data which can encompass 500+ records on one page. With pages that return large lists of data, Users often want functionality that will make this huge list easy to filter, search, and perform other interactive features. Because IE 11 and earlier IE browsers are are the "browser of choice"at most companies, you have to be aware that these browsers still have compatibility issues using modern JavaScript, HTML5, and CSS3. Often, the requirement is to make a site or application compatible on all browsers. This requires adding shivs or using prototypes which, with the code included to create a client-side application, adds to page load on the browser.
All of this will reduce performance and can cause the dreaded IE error "A script on this page is causing Internet Explorer to run slowly" forcing the User to choose if they want to continue running the script or not...creating bad User experiences.
Determine the complexity of the application and what the user wants now and could want in the future based on their preferences in their existing applications. If this is a simple site or app with little-to-medium data, use JavaScript Framework. But, if they want to incorporate accessibility; SEO; or need to display large amounts of data, use server-side code to render data and client-side code sparingly. In both cases, use a tool like Fiddler or Chrome Developer tools to check page load and response times and use best practices to optimize code.
Checkout MVC apps developed with ASP.NET Core.

At this stage the client side technology is leading the way, with the advent of many client side libraries like Backbone, Knockout, Spine and then with addition of client side templates like JSrender , mustache etc, client side development has become much easy.
so, If my requirement is to go for interactive app, I will surely go for client side.
In case you have more static html content then yes go for server side.
I did some experiments using both, I must say Server side is comparatively easier to implement then client side.
As far as performance is concerned. Read this you will understand server side performance scores.
http://engineering.twitter.com/2012/05/improving-performance-on-twittercom.html

I think the second variant is better. For example, If you implement something like 'skins' later, you will thank yourself for not formatting html on server :)
It also keeps a difference between view and controller. Ajax data is often produced by controller, so let it just return data, not html.
If you're going to create an API later, you'll need to make a very few changes in your code
Also, 'Naked' data is more cachable than HTML, i think. For example, if you add some style to links, you'll need to reformat all html.. or add one line to your js. And it isn't as big as html (in bytes).
But If many heavy scripts are needed to format data, It isn't to cool ask users' browsers to format it.

As long as you don't need to send a lot of data to the client to allow it to do the work, client side will give you a more scalable system, as you are distrubuting the load to the clients rather than hammering your server to do everything.
On the flip side, if you need to process a lot of data to produce a tiny amount of html to send to the client, or if optimisations can be made to use the server's work to support many clients at once (e.g. process the data once and send the resulting html to all the clients), then it may be more efficient use of resources to do the work on ther server.

If you do it in Ajax :
You'll have to consider accessibility issues (search about web accessibility in google) for disabled people, but also for old browsers, those who doesn't have JavaScript, bots (like google bot), etc.
You'll have to flirt with "progressive enhancement" wich is not simple to do if you never worked a lot with JavaScript. In short, you'll have to make your app work with old browsers and those that doesn't have JavaScript (some mobile for example) or if it's disable.
But if time and money is not an issue, I'd go with progressive enhancement.
But also consider the "Back button". I hate it when I'm browsing a 100% AJAX website that renders your back button useless.
Good luck!

2018 answer, with the existence of Node.js
Since Node.js allows you to deploy Javascript logic on the server, you can now re-use the validation on both server and client side.
Make sure you setup or restructure the data so that you can re-use the validation without changing any code.

Browser-based app needing IO control

This is a question about the best way to structure an app that has both server-side and client-side needs. Forgive the length -- I am trying to be as clear as possible with my vague question.
For a standalone non-web-connected art project, I'm creating a simple browser-based app. It could best be compared to a showy semi-complicated calculator.
I want the app to take advantage of the browser presentation abilities and run in a single non-reloading page. While I have lots of experience writing server-side apps in perl, PHP, and Python, I am newer to client-side programming, and neophyte at JavaScript.
The app will be doing a fair bit of math, a fair bit of I/O control on the Raspberry Pi, and lots of display control.
My original thought (and comfort zone) was to write it in Python with some JS hooks, but I might need to rethink that. I'd prefer to separate the logic layer from the presentation layer, but given the whole thing happens on a single non reloading html page, it seems like JavaScript is my most reasonable choice.
I'll be running this on a Raspberry Pi and I need to access the GPIO ports for both input and output. I understand that JavaScript will not be able to do I/O directly, and so I need to turn to something that will be doing AJAX-ish type calls to receive and sent IO, something like nodejs or socket.io.
My principle question is this -- Is there a clear best practice in choosing between these two approaches:
Writing the main logic of the app in client-side JavaScript and using server-side scripting to do I/O, or
Writing the logic of the app in a server-side language such as Python with calls to client-side Javascript to manage the presentation layer?
Both approaches require an intermediary between the client-side and server-side scripting. What would be the simplest platform or library to do this that will serve without being either total overkill or totally overwhelming for a learner?

I have never developed for the Raspberry Pi or had to access GPIO ports. But I have developed stand-alone web apps that acted like showy semi-complicated calculators.
One rather direct approach for your consideration:
Create the app as a single page HTML5 stand-alone web app that uses AJAX to access the GPIO ports via Node.JS or Python. Some thoughts on this approach based on my experience:
jQuery is a wonderful tool for keeping DOM access and manipulation readable and manageable. It streamlines JavaScript for working with the HTML page elements.
Keep your state in the browser local storage - using JavaScript objects and JSON makes this process amazingly simple and powerful. (One line of code can write your whole global state object to the local storage as a JSON string.) Always transfer any persistent application state changes from local variables to local storage - and have a page init routine that pulls the local storage into local variables upon any browser refresh or system reboot. Test by constantly refreshing your app as part of your testing as you develop to make sure state is managed the way you desire. This trick will keep things stable as you progress.
Using AJAX via jQuery for any I/O is very readable and reliable. It's asynchronous approach also keeps the app responsive as you perform any I/O. Error trapping and time-out handling is also easily accomplished.
For a back end, if the platform supports it, do consider Node.JS. It looks like there is at least one module for your specific I/O needs: https://github.com/EnotionZ/GpiO
I have found node to be very well supported and very easy to get started with. Also, it will keep you using JavaScript on both the front and back ends. Where this becomes most powerful is when you rely on JavaScript object literals and JSON - the two become almost interchangeable and allow you to pass complicated data structures to/from the back end via a few (or even one!) single object variable.
You can also keep your options open now on where you want to execute your math functions - since you can execute the exact same JavaScript functions in the browser or in the node back end.
If you do go the route of JavaScript and an HTML5 approach - do invest time in using the browser "developer tools" that offer very powerful debugging tools and dashboards to see exactly what is going on. You can even browse all the local storage key/value pairs with ease. It's quite a nice development platform.

After some consideration, I see the following options for your situation:
Disable browser security and directly communicate with GPIO. No standard libaries?
Use a JavaScript server environment with GPIO access and AJAX. Complexity introduced by AJAX
Use the familiar Python and use an embedded web browser If libraries are around, easy
Don't add too much complexity if you're not familiar with the tooling and language

Oh what a nice question! I'm thinking of it right now. My approach is a little difference:
With old MVC fashion, you consider the V(iew) layer is the rendered HTML page with Javascript CSS and many other things, and M and C will run on the server. And one day, I met Mr.AngularJS, I realized: Wow, some basic things may change:
AngularJS considers the View ( or the thing I believed is view ) is not actually view. AngularJS gave me Controllers, Data resources and even View templates in that "View", in another word: Client side itself can be a real Application. So now my approach is:
Server do the "server job" like: read and write data , sends data to the client, receive data from client ect....
And client do the "client job": interact with user, do the logic processes of data BEFORE IT WAS SENT such as validation, or format the information collected from user ect...
Maybe you can re-think of your approach: Ask your self what logic should run at client, what should at server. Client with javascript do its I/O, Server with server-side script do its I/O. The server will provide the needed resource for client and javascript use that resources as M(odel) of it's MVC. Hope you understand, my bad English :D

Well... it sounds like you've mostly settled on:
Python Server. (Python must manage the GPIO.)
HTML/JavaScript client, to create a beautiful UI. (HTML must present the UI.)
That seems great!
You're just wondering how much work to do on each side of the client/server divide... should be functionally equivalent.
In short: Do most of the work in whichever language you are more productive in.
Other notes come to mind:
Writing the entire server as standalone python is pretty
straightforwad.
You don't have to , but it's nice and
self-contained if you serve the page content itself from it.
If you
keep most of the state on the server/python side, you can make the
whole app a little more robust against page reloads (even though I
know you mentioned, that should never happen).

What are some architectural reasons to use node.js aside from scalability?

The most common theme I read about why to use node.js is for high scalability due to it's evented, non-blocking I/O model. I'm trying to understand other non-scalability uses cases (and aside from being used as a general server-side javascript engine).
Does node.js have other use cases if scalability isn't a concern of mine?
If yes to #1, what are they?
Is node.js usage appropriate for any particular type of application architectures? E.g. similar to how some key/value (nosql - ugh I hate that term) databases are useful other than for scalability reasons.

My reason for trying out node is the fact that it is incredibly easy to send JSON data between the server and the client for ajax requests.
If you use something like MongoDB, which stores data as JSON object too, you never have to worry about translating or parsing your data.
If your site uses a lot of ajax, and you're sending your data as JSON objects (rather than XML or plain text) then node.js will save you a fair bit of effort.

I think this blog posts sums it up quite well:
http://debuggable.com/posts/understanding-node-js:4bd98440-45e4-4a9a-8ef7-0f7ecbdd56cb
In short (pro node.js):
Speed
Javascript (especially if you know it already)
Efficiency
node.js is really great. Give it a try! :)

I can think of one reason, but its not very deep. Basically, If you are developing an RIA, your entire stack can be javascript. That might have some value.
But Ill question my own answer, namely the thought is, even if it makes the server side code more accessible to client side developers, they still need to understand how their server stack works. So there is still some learning to.

To be accurate, I think the general server-side JavaScript engine in your question would be V8, while according to its creator Node was built for "scripting network programs."
Based on many of his comments I don't believe he views it as broadly as many of us do, but recognizes where it can go. [I can't speak for anyone else--that's just my interpretation based on the writings and presentations I've seen.]
So it approaches things from a somewhat lower level, makes HTTP a first-class citizen and just happens to be really cool, which I think makes it enough of a "use case" for most of us. ;)
It does have a learning curve and isn't the most stable platform to build on due to its rapid development. I believe time will tell where it's most useful.
For now people are using it for "real-time" apps due to its lightweight, asynchronous nature, as well as general Web development, though IMO its sweet spot remains with its originally stated purpose.

What I like about node.js aside from non-blocking I/O model, scalability and all that "primary reasons" stuff:
Lightweight nature of it's framework. Basics are easy to learn.
Developer community building tons of useful modules and libraries on github which are expanding node.js lightweight core and it's capabilities.
It's really easy and fast to build server side and real-time systems (for example http or socket based) without the knowledge of complex libraries.

I like to use NodeJS to write testing harness because you can write a stub/server/client really quickly. And you can drive your application, with ease. I can easily script a third party back-end server to do performance testing on my application. I also use it to drive my application. I can perform complex client server scenarios using setTimout to cause multiple events to be trigger based on any logic I want and test them at scale.

Execute javascript on IIS server

I have the following situation. A customer uses JavaScript with jQuery to create a complex website. We would like to use JavaScript and jQuery on the server (IIS) for the following reasons:
Skills transfer - we would like to use JavaScript and jQuery on the server and not have to use eg VB Script. / classic asp. .Net framework/Java etc is ruled out because of this.
Improved options for search/accessibility. We would like to be able to use jQuery as a templating system, but this isn't viable for search engines and users with js turned off - unless we can selectively run this code on the server.
There is significant investment in IIS and Windows Server, so changing that is not an option.
I know you can run jScript on IIS using windows Script host, but am unsure of the scalability and the process surrounding this. I am also unsure whether this would have access to the DOM.
Here is a diagram that hopefully explains the situation. I was wondering if anyone has done anything similar?
EDIT: I am not looking for critic on web architecture, I am simply wanting to know if there are any options for manipulating the DOM of a page before it is sent to the client, using javascript. Jaxer is one such product (no IIS) Thanks.

Have a look at bringing the browser to the server, Rhino, and Use Microsoft's IIS as a Java servlet engine.
The first link is from John Resig's (jQuery's creator) blog.
Update August 2 2011
Node.js is coming to Windows.

The idea to reuse client JS on the server may sound tempting, but I am not sure that jQuery itself would be ready to run in server environment.
You will need to define global context for jQuery somehow by initializing window, document, self, location, etc.. I am not sure it is doable.
Besides, as Cheeso has mentioned, Active Server Pages is a very outdated technology, it was replaced with ASP.Net by Microsoft in the beginning of the century. I used to maintain a legacy system using ASP 3.0 for more than a year and that was pain. The most wonderful pastime was debugging: you will hardly find anything for the purpose today and will have to decript beautiful errors like in IIS log:
error '800a9c68'
Application-defined or object-defined error
Nevertheless, I can confirm that I managed to reuse client and server JScript. But this was code written by me who knew that it was going to be used on the server.
P.S. I would not recommend move that way. There are plenty templating frameworks which are familiar to those who write HTML and JavaScript.

JScript runs on IIS via something called ASP.
Active Server Pages.
It was first available in 1996.
Eventually ASP.NET was introduced as a successor. But ASP is still supported.
There is no DOM for the HTML page, though.
You might need to reconsider your architecture a bit.

I think the only viable solutions you're likely to find anywhere near ready to go involve putting IIS in front of Java. There are two browser-like environments I'm aware of coded for Java:
1) Env-js (see http://groups.google.com/group/envjs and http://github.com/thatcher/env-js )
I believe this one has contributions from jQuery's John Resig and was put together with jQuery testing/support in mind.
2) HTMLUnit (see http://htmlunit.sourceforge.net/ ) This one's older, and wasn't originally conceived around jQuery, but there are reports in the wild of using it to run jQuery's test suite successfully (http://daniel.gredler.net/2007/08/08/htmlunit-taming-jquery/ ).
If you want something pure-IIS/MS, I think your observation about windowsScript host and/or something like the semi-abandoned JScript.NET is probably about as close as you're going to come, along with a port (which you'll probably have to start) of something like Env-js or HTMLUnit.
Also, I don't know if you've seen the Wikipedia list of server-side JavaScript solutions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server-side_JavaScript
Finally... you could probably write a serviceable jQuery-like library in any language that already has some kind of DOM library and first-class functions (or, failing that an eval facility). See, for example pQuery for Perl (http://metacpan.org/pod/pQuery ). This would get you the benefits of the jQuery style of manipulating documents. Skill transfer is great and JavaScript has a wonderful confluence of very nice features, but on the other hand, having developers who care enough to learn multiple languages is also great, and js isn't the only nice language out there.

I think it's mainly a browser based script so probably you are better of using technologies based on VB or .NET to perform or generate HTML from templates. I'm sure there are because in the java world there are a few of these around (like velocity). You'd then use jQuery to create or add client side functionality and usability so it makes the website more usable than it would have been.

What exactly do you mean by
"A customer uses JavaScript with
jQuery to create a complex website"
Half the point of jQuery is to make it easy for the developer to manipulate the DOM, and therefore add interactive enhancements to a web site. By running the Javascript on the server and only rendering HTML you will lose the ability to add these enhancements, without doing a round trip to the server (think WebForms postback model...ugh).
Now if what you really mean is the customer uses a site builder based on jQuery, why not have that tool output flat HTML in the first place?

Take a look at this technology. You can invoke scripts to run at server, at client, or both. Plus, this really implements the firefox engine on the server. Take a look at it.
Aptana's Jaxer is the first AJAX web server so far. I have not tryed it yet, but I will. Looks promising and very powerful.