Earlier quoted context omitted.
But adding type system to JavaScript - as Facebook has done with Flow - and class system - as in ES6 - actually makes complex JavaScript better and easier...
I have literally heard the argument that React basically doesn't count as OOP anymore because they are now emphasizing 'functional' Javascript, even though they still rely on the main base class.
WebAssembly: a binary format for the web
141–150 of 164 posts
Re: WebAssembly: a binary format for the web
#142As far as the intersection of (innovation in web technology) and (innovation in programming languages) is concerned, I think the focus on performance is like going backwards in time, perhaps to the mid 90s. I feel like these innovations are being turned into a kind of "social media spectacle" with relatively little discussion of what innovation really means in this context. For example: I don't understand why Python,…
> For example: I don't understand why Python, JavaScript, Java, Ruby, and so on have not delivered tools that ease the path for those who wish to write applications designed to run code from untrusted sources. Probably because it is stupidly difficult to do robustly, especially when the language and standard libraries weren't originally designed to do that. Lua is perhaps best positioned for this given how tightly yo…
Re: WebAssembly: a binary format for the web
#143Re: WebAssembly: a binary format for the web
#144As laudable as the goal of improving performance is, I hope this never takes off. Why? Because it will take about 5 minutes from 90% of the web to go from open, transparent, easily reverse engineerable source code to essentially giant blobs of secret binary code. People will pay lip service to performance but 99% of the reason that web sites will implement this will be to cover up their code, keep secret their implem…
Re: WebAssembly: a binary format for the web
#145Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not sure if serious... This comment translates to "except without garbage-collection, and with a loose set of inconsistent and constantly-changing interfaces instead of One Sanctioned Spec."
Not sure why you think a GC is a good thing. Deterministic object disposal is to me way more convenient and safe than a GC (haven't you ever experienced a race when the GC dispose your memory too soon or not soon enough?)
It is no different than imposing a programming pattern like RAII.
Re: WebAssembly: a binary format for the web
#146Re: WebAssembly: a binary format for the web
#147As laudable as the goal of improving performance is, I hope this never takes off. Why? Because it will take about 5 minutes from 90% of the web to go from open, transparent, easily reverse engineerable source code to essentially giant blobs of secret binary code. People will pay lip service to performance but 99% of the reason that web sites will implement this will be to cover up their code, keep secret their implem…
Many outside the HN web bubble are still plain HTML/CSS sites with almost everything done server side.
Re: WebAssembly: a binary format for the web
#148Re: WebAssembly: a binary format for the web
#149Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, but one of the goals of WebAssembly is to have a textual representation, so in theory you could still View Source. Not sure how that'll work out in practice, though.
In practice, I think most browsers won't include a "disassembler", under the justification that most users won't need it; I can see "View Source" unfortunately going that way too. What's wrong with that argument is the fact that although most users don't need it, it's an excellent way for those interested to explore into and find out how things work, and essentially get into web development with nearly no effort. If…
We had to buy magazines and books to view any source.
Still lots of us got interested and a few guys managed to build the initial web infrastructure without a view source button.
Re: WebAssembly: a binary format for the web
#150Earlier quoted context omitted.
In practice, I think most browsers won't include a "disassembler", under the justification that most users won't need it; I can see "View Source" unfortunately going that way too. What's wrong with that argument is the fact that although most users don't need it, it's an excellent way for those interested to explore into and find out how things work, and essentially get into web development with nearly no effort. If…
When I got into computers there wasn't any view source button. We had to buy magazines and books to view any source. Still lots of us got interested and a few guys managed to build the initial web infrastructure without a view source button.