JavaScript has been called "The Assembly Language of the Web", but that's a slightly flawed analogy. Assembly, which is just one step above binary machine code, is hardware-specific and notoriously non-portable. That's exactly the opposite of JavaScript, which can more accurately be viewed as a virtual machine for web browsers — something other languages can target.

Consider the attitude toward low-level assembly languages 30-40 years ago. The attraction of writing programs in pure assembly language was that it allowed highly skilled expert programmers to produce code that is extremely optimized for size and performance. Compiled languages (like C, FORTRAN, or BASIC) were easier to work with, and could be ported between systems much more easily, but they were often slower and orders of magnitude larger. Thirty years ago it was common to hear statements such as "Higher-level compiled languages are convenient, but they'll never be able to compete with hand-optimized assembly!"

A funny thing happened, though…actually three funny things:

First, Moore's Law worked in our favor such that the performance difference between human-written assembly and compiler-generated code practically vanished.

Second, the scope and complexity of programs increased by several orders of magnitude, making assembly code-bases harder to manage, particularly with large teams.

Finally, and perhaps most significantly, compilers improved significantly. Vast resources were focused on improving the performance of compilers and the efficiency of higher-level languages. Eventually they reached the point where the assembly code they were producing was smaller and more efficient than what average developers could write.

JavaScript's current situation is very similar. Browsers, especially on mobile devices, are significantly faster than they were just a few years ago, and much effort is being invested in further improvements. At the same time, we're asking JavaScript to do far more now than we were as recently as five years ago, and arguably much, much more than it was intended to do. It is, after all, 18 years old, and originated in the very early days of Netscape and IE. Some would argue that JavaScript is being stretched well beyond the "sweet spot" of its capabilities, helped along thus far only by its inherent flexibility.

That's actually a very common pattern for programming languages: They begin as solutions to specific types of problems, then they're generalized to solve many other existing problems. As new types of problems arise, they're expanded to address those as well, gradually expanding until the weaknesses in their underlying models become apparent, at which point they're supplanted by new languages and/or tools that address those weaknesses.

As such, as we've learned more in recent years about what we actually need JavaScript to do, many very smart people, along with some very powerful companies, have begun investing in new tools to solve those problems.

In particular, some of the major problems they're attempting to solve are:

1) Writing Better Code – You may know how to write good JavaScript code now, but odds are that it could be much better. Take a look at the code for jQuery and honestly ask yourself if you have the time (or the skills) to produce something better. The flexibility of JavaScript, which is one of its great strengths, also allows for some truly terrible shortcuts and misapprehensions of behavior.

2) Scaling Projects – A long, long time ago (around 2005), JavaScript was just something you added a little bit of to a web page to get some more interactive features. Those days are long gone, though, and the modern era of fully interactive web-based applications calls for ever-increasing amounts of client side JavaScript. JavaScript code snippets that were manageable for a few developers across a handful of pages become increasingly unwieldy with dozens of developers and scores of pages.

3) Portability – Yes, JavaScript is portable between browsers, but we all know that "portable" doesn't mean "identical," and that there are countless small differences that need to be taken into account when moving code between browsers.

4) Longevity – Portability applies across time, too. Does the JavaScript you wrote for Firefox in 2009 still work the same under Internet Explorer in 2013? For that matter, does what you wrote for IE last year still work correctly today? Complex web applications have far longer lifespans today than they did just a few years ago, and time spent going back to rewrite "completed" code is time spent not moving forward.

The emerging solution to these problems is to write less JavaScript, and instead write in higher-level languages from which JavaScript is generated by pseudo-compilers or interpreters.

Using tools to generate JavaScript potentially produces better code, since it allows you to take advantage of the expertise of the experts who created the tools. In many cases the improvements are as simple as automating things you know you *should* be doing but probably aren't, like good scope practices. In other cases, the improvements can take the form of more esoteric optimizations or just simple minifying. In either case, unless you're a serious JavaScript expert, it's increasingly probable that the tools written by people who *are* will do a better job than you.

By enforcing naming, typing, and scoping rules that aren't native to JavaScript, many of these tools make it easier to scale projects and reuse code, especially between multiple groups.

Also, by allowing you to regenerate your JavaScript at any time under new rules, or multiple sets of rules, these tools can make it easier to address cross-browser needs or adapt to evolving capabilities and standards.

Let's quickly look at a few examples:

- CoffeeScript – Strongly influenced by Ruby and Python, CoffeeScript aims to provide a more-refined front-end for creating JavaScript. The code itself is much cleaner and more concise than JavaScript, and the generated code is typically more standards-conformant than handwritten code.

- ClojureScript – Clojure is a Lisp language targeting the Java Virtual Machine. ClojureScript is a specialized version of Clojure that targets JavaScript for output instead of Java bytecode. If that distinction doesn't mean much to you, or the mention of Lisp didn't get you excited, then ClojureScript may not be your best option.

- GWT – Google Web Toolkit is a far bigger package of tools than simply a JavaScript generator, but it is worth noting for its ability to generate JavaScript from Java code. Whether you see that as an improvement probably depends on your opinion of Java.

- Dart – Also from Google, Dart represents less of a departure from the C-style syntax of JavaScript, which may make it a more comfortable alternative for those comfortable with JavaScript. What separates Dart from the other alternatives is that in addition to generating Javascript, it can also compile to bytecode intended to run in a dedicated Dart virtual machine. Although currently limited to experimental versions of Chrome, the performance is significantly better than standard Javascript, and the approach at least represents an attempt to advance the state of the art.

- TypeScript – TypeScript is Microsoft's solution to the shortcomings of JavaScript. So far, it is seems to represent the smallest departure for Javascript developers, since its main purpose is to enforce a type system on JavaScript code, thus making it easier to generate and optimize.

Although it is still possible to create some truly incredible programs using assembly the vast majority of production code is produced in higher level languages. Similarly, while JavaScript still dominates client-side web programming (and is making inroads on the server), and will continue to be significant for years to come, it seems inevitable that it will eventually be supplemented, then replaced, by higher-level alternatives that empower us to create better user experiences easily and safely.

At least let's hope so!

And zing, to the surprise and delight of masses of viewers looking for something fresh, that shot hit home. How exactly did this happen? How did a story and concept that were originally intended to entice and entertain your average male comic book reader between the ages of eighteen and forty manage to expand its horizons so broadly? Not without a natural evolution from one medium, and one audience, to another.

(At this point, any reader who is not yet caught up on the show or the comic books should proceed with the caution of a live body in a warehouse full of the undead. There will be pitfalls and spoilers around every corner.)

Firstly, it will come as a surprise to many viewers that this popular TV show even began as a monthly comic book series. Because it is presented in an entirely different medium rife with changes both necessary and simply aesthetic, the television show now stands firmly on its own. Many of the show's viewers, one would venture to guess, would be disappointed or even shocked at some of the elements in Robert Kirkman's well-loved comic books.

Perhaps the most popular addition, and one of the greatest boons to the success of the show, created entirely for the show, is the character of Daryl, who has edged out the popularity even of the series' hero, Rick. With legions of fans sporting tees that read "If Daryl Dies, We Riot," the show's fans have resolutely had their say. Norman Reedus took a character that was perhaps initially intended as little more than an extra to be slaughtered and breathed into him life, charm and complexity worthy of a true champion and heartthrob. There are also characters we all loved to hate, who got to stick around on screen far longer than they did in paper and ink. Shane, the sexy, dangerous villain who became increasingly, mesmerizingly unhinged and created a complex love triangle between himself, Lori, and Rick, was just too good to toss out in the first or second episode. Lasting nearly all the way through season two, Jon Bernthal also took on a depth not seen in his comic book counterpart, and became the cause of not just one but two awkward romantic triangles – a formula that will always be a favorite with TV viewers.

Shane's second conquest, Andrea of the famed young lady/older man romance with Dale in the comic books, evolved into a woman that is a far cry from her comic book equivalent. Already cast as significantly older than she was in the comic books to make the TV viewing audience less uncomfortable with her potential romantic relationship with Dale, the grey-bearded sage of the group, Andrea begins a reckless fling with the unruly Shane in the second season of the show, showing that the show's drama and appeal come as much from the tearing of heartstrings and the raging of passion as the ripping and devouring of actual flesh and blood. And let's face it, TV audiences usually go for evenly-matched couples, in sex appeal and good looks as well as age. Little more than hinted at, any prospect of a romance between Dale and Andrea dies when the character himself is prematurely killed off. Although this was due mostly to the actor Jeffery DeMunn's decision to follow Frank Darabont's exit when he chose to step down as executive producer due to the show's exhausting schedule, so we can only guess as to whether this line would have been pursued had Dale's character gone on living. Incidentally, favorites of the former producer of The Walking Dead, Demunn and Bernthal will both be in Darabont's newest project, Lost Angels.

While still considered edgy for television, the show has also toned down other risky factors besides mismatched romances. Children. They are sacred, the preservation of their safety hits far too close to home for most of us. Whatever else we are ready for, we're apparently not ready to see them die onscreen. Just how far does the show push this dilemma? So far, unlike in the comic book series, all the major deaths of kids have occurred off-camera, leaving us with only the aftermath – Sophia stumbling out of Hershel's barn in walker form in one of the show's most gut-wrenching reveals, the small girl zombie Rick encounters in the first episode, Morgan's young son's death only told of in dramatic monologue—are all quite upsetting enough for most of us, thankyouverymuch. One wonders what will become of the infant Judith, whose presence lends an almost unbearable tension to the group, as she dies in possibly the most shocking (but hardly the only) incident of child murder in the comic books.

With all the changes, one wonders where the show will take us next. Certainly Hershel has morphed into Dale's doppelgänger as the group's calm voice of reason, and the popular comic book character Michonne has been introduced to the group (albeit in a more multifaceted, and therefore more relatable and less comic-booky form), much to the delight of her old and new fans, but one still gets at least the impression that nothing is off limits – that anything could happen, anyone could be the next causality. And that's exactly where they want us. Because not only are we fascinated by how much more these characters can take, we are darkly fascinated by how much more we, as viewers of this unprecedented television material, can handle.

Star Wars® Return of the Jedi™ – Ewok Adventure™ for the Atari® 2600 is an unreleased game from Parker Brothers. The prototype was discovered in 1997 and subsequently released as a ROM. The artists, the Brothers Hildebrandt, provided the original artwork design used on this reproduction label designed for the New England Classic Gaming Expo.

The demo has been ported to nearly every computer system as proof of equality and an extremely long running joke. In 2004 the Atari 2600 was added to that list and we had the pleasure of designing the accompanying artwork and identity.

In 2008 the Apple iPhone became the most recent recipient of the Amiga Boing Demo.

In addition to the website we were able to provide a mascot, Beanster the Boar, for the university.