311–320 of 335 posts
It's not hard to make websites, it hard to make fashionable websites. It always takes effort to be fashionable, since it distinguishes your vitality from the dead and dying from yesteryear. If it was easy to fake fashion, everyone would do it, and we'd lose the vitality signal. Fashion changes unpredictably, so it can't be anticipated. All this is a feature, not a bug, so it will never be "solved".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"very good Javascript programmers can be significantly better in a better language." This is not how it works. Take this idea that JavaScript is a "badly designed language" out of your head and understand that about 99% of JavaScript's behaviours are intentional. The majority of gotchas in JS are shown by people who don't understand type coercion, prototypes or who expect it to behave like x language. It is not just…
> Take this idea that JavaScript is a "badly designed language" out of your head Respectfully, no. The impressive thing about it is it was written in 3 weeks. Edit: I also didn't say Javascript was a badly designed language, at least not in the post you replied to. The rest of it is like PHP (yes, I have programmed a fair bit in that as well). > and understand that about 99% of JavaScript's behaviours are intentional…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"very good Javascript programmers can be significantly better in a better language." This is not how it works. Take this idea that JavaScript is a "badly designed language" out of your head and understand that about 99% of JavaScript's behaviours are intentional. The majority of gotchas in JS are shown by people who don't understand type coercion, prototypes or who expect it to behave like x language. It is not just…
> Take this idea that JavaScript is a "badly designed language" out of your head Respectfully, no. The impressive thing about it is it was written in 3 weeks. Edit: I also didn't say Javascript was a badly designed language, at least not in the post you replied to. The rest of it is like PHP (yes, I have programmed a fair bit in that as well). > and understand that about 99% of JavaScript's behaviours are intentional…
Actually 10 days, with 22 years of development, but that has nothing to do with how it fundamentally works.
> The rest of it is like PHP
Are you joking? Ok so, JavaScript is a prototype based language PHP is (now) an OOP language. They are not remotely the same with the exception of dynamic types and even that is nothing like PHP due to the nature of JS engines like V8. But because if the prototype system it can emulate classical OOP.
JavaScript is also a higher-order language which mean it is a psuedo-functional programming language.
PHP and JS could not be further apart.
> The classic Perl defense I'd say: ~you don’t understand the beauty of it.
It's not about beauty, I'm saying that most people who think the language is making mistakes or doing something wrong just don't understand how it works. They blame it for their lack of knowledge.
> Well, every thing you can do in JS you can also do in TS.
But that's not why people use TypeScript, they use it to do TypeScript styled things.
> what you said above: ~ intuitive enough to create your own restrictions
That's the problem, TypeScript comes with a bunch of constraints, that's its purpose. Yes you can choose to use them or not. You could also buy a new phone and throw it off a cliff, but that's not generally why people buy phones.
> Also: By this logic we should be programming in assembly.
Assembly serves a purpose well, so does JavaScript. I'm just saying rather than trash things why not learn them first properly.
There is a difference between web design and web application development. If you are a designer making brochure sites for small business, you don't need the modern frameworks and toolkits, and you are over-engineering it if you use them. Everyone needs to take a step back and ask why they are building a web site in the first place. My local hair salon really just needs a brochure, and maybe a scheduling widget. A doc…
1) A brochure.
2) Scheduling.
3) A messaging system (sending email with health info is not HIPAA-compliant, obviously).
4) A way to look up lab results and whatnot.
5) On the back end, a way for the doctor to _enter_ the lab results.
6) Ideally a way to automatically generate and print out kids' vaccination information forms for schools.
and probably other things I'm not thinking of. 1-5 are common; I haven't run into #6 yet, but I keep hoping. Now you're correct that the right answer is to outsource all this, not least because of the HIPAA compliance problems.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just because JS' _this_ doesn't behave like in other languages doesn't make it bad, I mean it's behaviour is well defined. JavaScript is more dynamic than most languages and yes this may be hard to grasp for the average developer, especially when they come from languages that are considered "more mature".
> behaviour is well defined. True, and we could go one step further: it's unambiguously defined, with invariant rules that can be used to prove a conformant implementation.
XMPP had been defined as formally: where have we ended up with it now?
There is a difference between web design and web application development. If you are a designer making brochure sites for small business, you don't need the modern frameworks and toolkits, and you are over-engineering it if you use them. Everyone needs to take a step back and ask why they are building a web site in the first place. My local hair salon really just needs a brochure, and maybe a scheduling widget. A doc…
> My local hair salon really just needs a brochure And the default solution is Wordpress !! A full blown PHP application to just do a brochure.
You need to make an admin panel for your client. WordPress has all of that.
They want a contact form? Just add a plugin. No coding needed.
And WordPress is easy as heck to deploy anywhere.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While it is certainly possible to understand JS it is - IMO - a waste of brain cycles that we have to live with. There's no doubth in me that even very good Javascript programmers can be significantly better in a better language. E.g. Typescript gives you literally all of JS - and a way to keep things tidy. Typescript which is a compile-to-js language in a weird way proves how lacking js is - while still buildiing on…
"very good Javascript programmers can be significantly better in a better language." This is not how it works. Take this idea that JavaScript is a "badly designed language" out of your head and understand that about 99% of JavaScript's behaviours are intentional. The majority of gotchas in JS are shown by people who don't understand type coercion, prototypes or who expect it to behave like x language. It is not just…
And once that lib gets larger then 4 files, it becomes slower and slower to maintain, because JS. Spinning up new devs on any large JS project is a pain. Typescript, no problems.
Lib size differences are ~0.
html, css, and jQuery work just about exactly the same as they did a decade ago, nothing stops you from using tools you already understand. If it was up to facebook then react would be the only framework used on the web; problem solved right? In reality, there are different tools for different needs and if you don't understand the specific problems a tool was made to solve then of course you're going to find it confu…