Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

JavaScript is Good, Actually

ashfurrow.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 369 posts

Re: JavaScript is Good, Actually

#151

Post by amelius »

aldanor wrote: post #150
amelius wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Python syntax is built around indentation. Try to properly indent a function that you pass to another function. And what if you have to pass two such functions? Where do you place the comma that separates both arguments?

Re: JavaScript is Good, Actually

#152

Post by aldanor »

1897234234235 wrote: post #110
wruza wrote: post #94

Earlier 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…

> It is also really slow

1) In scientific/ML CPython libraries, most critical parts are compiled anyway, and the core language is fast and expressive enough to provide a nice and fast interface to it; so your statement makes little sense without more context

2) Python != CPython

Re: JavaScript is Good, Actually

#153

Post by AnIdiotOnTheNet »

mratzloff wrote: post #120
sloxy wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's interesting because I also picked up on that: "I am a world-class software developer living in New York’s East Village" and I just thought, hmm, here's this guy with ~5 years of ~professional dev(mainly with iOS) and he self qualifies himself as world class. Looking at his bio, I see he's worked for 3 companies doing quite ordinary things. I would love to know what gave him the confidence/ignorance to describe…

Let's stick to the content of the article and not tear down our fellow engineers.

He is kind of inviting it by declaring himself "world-class". You don't get to make an assertion like that and then complain when it is challenged.

Re: JavaScript is Good, Actually

#154

Post by egeozcan »

cm2187 wrote: post #124
egeozcan wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are a lot of valid criticisms against JavaScript. This is a fact. It's not a great language (clearly demonstrated by the discussion about it being good or not) but it's not terrible. I doubt anyone calls JS terrible on its own merits. There is a lot of hate against the runtime (edit: I mean the browser, not JS VMs or interpreters). The runtime enforces JS and the runtime itself is enforced everywhere. There is…

The difference between the hostility to php and the hostility to js is that there are many alternatives to php whereas, right now, if you want code to execute in the browser or on many different platforms, you don't have a choice. So where I would normally tell people who boo php to use whatever language they prefer, and get over it, that's not possible with js.

> So where I would normally tell people who boo php to use whatever language they prefer, and get over it, that's not possible with js.

Maybe 5 years ago. For nowadays, I beg to differ: https://github.com/jashkenas/coffeescript/wiki/list-of-langu...

A significant amount of the choices there produce generally better-performing code than the hand-written JS, there's also the WebAssembly.

Re: JavaScript is Good, Actually

#155

Post by ZvG_Bonjwa »

sloxy wrote: post #93
onra87 wrote: post #35

This is a lot of lines for not saying much. I was expecting much more from a "world-class software developer"(see About section) :) Saying that the community is more advanced in the JavaScript ecosystem than it is in the iOS world is a nonsense to me. Don't we have more JS developers than iOS developers ? Moreover, saying that JS syntax is really good with tools like TypeScript is another nonsense. You can also write…

That's interesting because I also picked up on that: "I am a world-class software developer living in New York’s East Village" and I just thought, hmm, here's this guy with ~5 years of ~professional dev(mainly with iOS) and he self qualifies himself as world class. Looking at his bio, I see he's worked for 3 companies doing quite ordinary things. I would love to know what gave him the confidence/ignorance to describe…

Oh, come on. So the guy uses some harmless exaggeration when selling himself on his own personal website & you're taking him to programmer jail over it?

Do you frequently launch into personal attacks on authors whose articles you disagree with?

Re: JavaScript is Good, Actually

#156

Post by isoos »

cm2187 wrote: post #124
egeozcan wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are a lot of valid criticisms against JavaScript. This is a fact. It's not a great language (clearly demonstrated by the discussion about it being good or not) but it's not terrible. I doubt anyone calls JS terrible on its own merits. There is a lot of hate against the runtime (edit: I mean the browser, not JS VMs or interpreters). The runtime enforces JS and the runtime itself is enforced everywhere. There is…

The difference between the hostility to php and the hostility to js is that there are many alternatives to php whereas, right now, if you want code to execute in the browser or on many different platforms, you don't have a choice. So where I would normally tell people who boo php to use whatever language they prefer, and get over it, that's not possible with js.

Compile-to-JS exists, and there are good ones out there. E.g. you can develop in Dart for web, server and mobile, and it is a solid alternative in every segment (the language and tooling is anyway).

Re: JavaScript is Good, Actually

#157

Post by CiPHPerCoder »

tromp wrote: post #98
anton-107 wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's not a great language (clearly demonstrated by the discussion about it being good or not) but it's not terrible I'm wondering what would be an example of a great language? Because we know that there are only two kinds of languages: the ones people complain about and the ones nobody uses

I like to think of Haskell as a great language. It still has its warts (e.g. last [0,1/3..2] > 2), but if you wan't wart free, there's probably nothing beyond lambda calculus. Being the closest thing to lambda calculus with enough syntactic sugar on top to make it practical is a large part of what makes Haskell great.

The one thing that makes Haskell not great is that its understanding is not widely intuitive.

People with mathy backgrounds that don't blink at the phrase "lambda calculus" won't consider this, but a lot of people struggle with math.

If you can't put it in the hands of a 6th grader (in the public school system with no special tutoring) and have a reasonable chance of it being understood (n.b. I self-taught myself early JavaScript when I was in the 5th grade, and picked up PHP the following year), it won't ever be "great".

Re: JavaScript is Good, Actually

#158

Post by lostcolony »

1897234234235 wrote: post #110
wruza wrote: post #94

Earlier 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…

Python environments and versioning are a PITA too. That's my main beef with it. Getting anyone else's Python code to run is a nightmare if they haven't documented everything; most other languages I use feel like they have some sort of default versioning built in when you start including other packages.

The difference between 'npm install' (and even an added 'gulp') and the chickens I've had to sacrifice at crossroads to get Python packages working is notable.

Oblig XKCD - https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/python_environment.png

Re: JavaScript is Good, Actually

#159

Post by dx034 »

aldanor wrote: post #152
1897234234235 wrote: post #110

Earlier 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…

> It is also really slow 1) In scientific/ML CPython libraries, most critical parts are compiled anyway, and the core language is fast and expressive enough to provide a nice and fast interface to it; so your statement makes little sense without more context 2) Python != CPython

While I use Python for ML myself, I find it weird to say that a language isn't slow because you don't really use it anyway. It's true that Scripts in Python can be fast if 99% of the executed logic is in C anyway but that doesn't mean the language isn't slow. As soon as your Python script needs to do anything not available in a library you'll notice how slow it really is.

Python is really neat to quickly experiment platform independent but it's definitely extremely slow.

Re: JavaScript is Good, Actually

#160

Post by aldanor »

amelius wrote: post #151
aldanor wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My main problem with Python: passing a temporary closure to a function is very messy. What's messy about it?

Python syntax is built around indentation. Try to properly indent a function that you pass to another function. And what if you have to pass two such functions? Where do you place the comma that separates both arguments?

You can't define a function via 'def' and pass it as an argument at the same time. You can do it via 'lambda' though (which doesn't require any indentation since it's just an expression), what's the problem with it?

    >>> (lambda f: lambda x: f(x) * 2)(lambda x: x + 1)(100)
    202
Post reply on HN