javascript is bloated shit language that betas drool all over. The language and apis are hacked together shit code that cant do shit half the time. You cant preform intensive tasks with that shit script.
JavaScript is Good, Actually
141–150 of 369 posts
Re: JavaScript is Good, Actually
#142Earlier quoted context omitted.
If we’re talking about “dynamic CRUD over socket abstracted to death”-style tasks, and not considering minor preferences like syntax, then python, lua, most of lisp/schemes, perl. All of these allow enough meta-anything to do: ./file.src: func api_foo() for x in objs x.a = fetch(x.b) ui.btnok.enabled = yes commit() And have foo exported as api, and when called, all clients/servers, databases synced, validations passe…
I think python is a terrible language. It has so little syntax you can't tell the difference between various things. A variable declaration, a reassignment, a keyword, a whatever else, they don't have any visual distinction from each other. I also find that python has reserved a whole bunch of keywords that I can't use as function names, making APIs hard to create with appropriate names. You also have to pollute your…
My main problem with Python: passing a temporary closure to a function is very messy. You can't do functional programming well in Python.
Also, I think scoping rules in Python are terrible. I always end up with a namespace that is a mess. And you can't do something like this in a clean way:
counter = 0
def add(n):
counter += n
add(1)
add(2)
add(3)Re: JavaScript is Good, Actually
#143I think we have a case of Stockholm Syndrome here. He claims on one hand that Javascript is great and then cites the awesome tooling like Typescript. Well, a great language would not need Typescript, now would it? I think the most obviously damning thing about Javascript is how the rest of the world bends over backwards and speaks JSON now because it's less trouble if we adapt to JS than if we adapt JS. Well, yeah, i…
I don't think JSON is a signifier of that - we had XML before and you're always going to need plain text types of files like that. Python also plays well with JSON. It's just Java/C++ types that don't play easily with JSON unless you want a lot of translation and processing.
That said, I agree with the rest of the points. I do love JSON though.
Re: JavaScript is Good, Actually
#144Switching back to Java after having spent a long time in JavaScript land with modern standards made me realize how great JavaScript had become. The biggest reason for JavaScripts greatness to me is JSON. I couldn't understand how Java developers put up with such bulky ways to deal with data. After some time in Java land I've come back to appreciating its strengths again though. Code completion is nice. I'm kind of ho…
Try Python - JSON works very well with it and while Python has its flaws, I think it's a much better language to use.
Re: JavaScript is Good, Actually
#145I agree with the general idea and I like js... But don't like electron or jsx because they're wasteful and too much of a mix of stuff, respectively.
Re: JavaScript is Good, Actually
#146> JavaScript is good, actually. If you use Flow and Typescript which are not Javascript.
That's like saying that Java is good, actually, if you use Kotlin. But not really, because the UX of using Kotlin is 100x nicer than using transpilers.
Re: JavaScript is Good, Actually
#147Oh man, I hate these articles as they bring out the trolls. Javascript is a great language because it allows you to develop incredibly fast (scripting language) for a platform that runs everywhere (the web). It used to be far simpler, but IMHO, insecurity because of all of the FUD that this sort of article prescribes, has meant that the language has bloated to incorporate all sorts of syntax improvements and new patt…
>It's not a systems programming language, so all the comparisons against typed, compiled languages are moot. No they are not 'moot'. At least not if you're building applications with 100k+ LOC. For dinky websites and small projects I'm with you. >Introducing transpiling as a mandatory pattern for JS development was a mistake. Again, what are you building? A dinky website, or a large application that you'll have to ma…
Transpilation is the number one reason I've seen that makes maintenance of older projects hard. The fact that JS didn't standardize on a module syntax until far too late means that we're forced into a transpilation cycle to build bigger projects. I can call that a mistake without denying it's reality.
If you want to build a web application, at some point, until we have true web assembly, you will have to use javascript, which does make a lot of the arguments here moot, regardless of the size of the project.
Re: JavaScript is Good, Actually
#148Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Based on its own merits it’s a pretty average language with lots of design flaws. I don't really judge a language based on the number of design flaws. That is like judging a computer based only on its specs. >and most of its users never really got a chance to solve the same problems with a better language. I don't really think there is such a thing as "better languages". Also your statement is probably true, and was…
> Web Assembly is not supposed to remove javascript, it is supposed to be used in addition to it when you need high performance. If people try to promote it as a way to not have to use javascript, it will just result in a more fragmented client-side programming situation, where libraries are not available for particular languages, etc. I guess you have been missing the news what is being done in Go, Java, .NET, Rust,…
Yep, exactly that will happen.
There are lots of developers that stayed as backend engineers as they couldnt stand javascript (as a language and its integration with DOM), they stepped over the beginner phase with their development skills while javascript forced them to write BASIC (LOGO) level code. On the top of it, there were always some junior engineers that barely started to develop and were playing smart and bragging how cool the javascript is. There is a lot of rage stored in those circles and there are lots of excelent developers (I can tell you that 90% of top developers (not 25 years old kids, people that are able to write runtime compilers and OSes if given enought time) I know never wanted to work in javascript). Different reasons but I can tell you that most of them would say "I dont like java, but javascript is humiliating".
Now the webasm is comming, I am preparing to bet that the frameworks will start to pop out in year or something after DOM is supported and they will overrun javascript in shortest possible time, just to prove the point - it sucks big time. QT is beeing prepared, all the "real" languages are starting to prepare to support compiling into webasm... the traditionally backend languages (that... you wouldnt believe... backend engineers know very well) are now having a chance to shine in browser that was restricted for them due to javascript monopoly.
I wouldnt take the javascript future as really bright, in best case it will be used in same way as today shell scripts are (this is what they meant that webassembly is not replacement for javascript). To glue some parts of "system" (read as: browser) together.
And quite frankly, this is step that should be done 10 years back. It would save world a lot of trouble.
And have fun: https://s3.amazonaws.com/mozilla-games/ZenGarden/EpicZenGard...
Re: JavaScript is Good, Actually
#149I see a lot of people that are pro-JS are coming from Java/C++:
Re the Javascript advantages of JSON and quick writing: Python! It too has its flaws, but so many fewer and writing in it is a breeze. Python 3 is only getting better to, so if you do start, take the time to start in 3, not 2.
Javascript is indeed pushing more function programming type stuff, but if you really want that, go with a Lisp/Scheme or Haskell IMO. It's simply what I've been exposed to, but Racket is a great language for quick little programs. You can also go functional in Python easily enough as well.
Re: JavaScript is Good, Actually
#150Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think python is a terrible language. It has so little syntax you can't tell the difference between various things. A variable declaration, a reassignment, a keyword, a whatever else, they don't have any visual distinction from each other. I also find that python has reserved a whole bunch of keywords that I can't use as function names, making APIs hard to create with appropriate names. You also have to pollute your…
My main problem with Python: passing a temporary closure to a function is very messy. You can't do functional programming well in Python. Also, I think scoping rules in Python are terrible. I always end up with a namespace that is a mess. And you can't do something like this in a clean way: counter = 0 def add(n): counter += n add(1) add(2) add(3)
> My main problem with Python: passing a temporary closure to a function is very messy.
What's messy about it?