131–140 of 459 posts
So of all the good, far more suitable languages they could use, we're getting it written the flaming pile of trash that is JavaScript? Why though?
>good, far more suitable languages Can you give a simple analysis on what weaknesses JS has that other languages would avoid with no pitfalls of their own?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>it's just not a terribly good or fast one From everything I've seen, its performance sits just below Java (4x slower, perhaps) on some standard algorithms or tasks, and significantly faster than languages like Ruby, Python, etc.. I never see hate for those languages like for JS, so I'll disregard that. >not terribly good This one never has made sense. What is it missing that makes you hate it so? I think it has rath…
What creates hostility is the sentiment of being forced to use a bad language. There are many alternatives to python or php but none really to javascript (transpilers hacks apart). Webassembly might change that. The only other language that I have seen generating as much hostility is vb6, and also I believe because some developpers found themselves forced to use it.
Surprised they didn’t opt for Typescript. Then again, it’s a tweet - looking forward to a longer blog post with technical details when they’re willing to talk about it more.
> Surprised they didn’t opt for Typescript. I assume that they have. Typescript compiles down to Javascript so the tweet is technically correct (written in TS, executed in JS) and there are many out there who won't have a clue what TS is but have at least some grasp of what JS is so JS was probably stated instead of TS to avoid confusion amongst the unwashed masses.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>it's just not a terribly good or fast one From everything I've seen, its performance sits just below Java (4x slower, perhaps) on some standard algorithms or tasks, and significantly faster than languages like Ruby, Python, etc.. I never see hate for those languages like for JS, so I'll disregard that. >not terribly good This one never has made sense. What is it missing that makes you hate it so? I think it has rath…
If I threw billions of dollars of vested interest at Python/Ruby/COBOL/(insert language of your choice) we can probably make those run at JS speeds as well. Does that solve the fundamental drawbacks of the languages? Nope. No it does not. JavaScript is particularly egregious because of it's weird behaviour about types and coercion and you know, just silently failing, behaviour that I wouldn't want going on in any pro…
sure wish i knew what you are talking about w/r/t "silently failing". JS has working exceptions just like 99% of widely used languages.
I'm very glad that you've been omniscient enough to determine what "proper" parallel support is, though. How's that working out for you? Meanwhile, those of us using JavaScript simply run one process per core and never worry about contention, deadlocks, or race conditions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We're talking 50M SLOC and 20+ years of development for native platforms. I highly doubt that they will let that go in favor of an JS app.
Outlook on the web is certainly better than the application on windows... word won't be too hard. Now excel, that's the one I'd be surprised to see.
Oh well, the kool-aid is strong. Next round of what Intel giveth, Microsoft taketh away... Can somebody please design even worse language so that we can progress by reimplementing everything in it, keeping us occupied for the next 20 years?
How much more real world evidence does HN need to see before the "JS isn't a real language" meme is abandoned? Pretty sure we're up to billions of real world value created by software written in Javascript. If you're still dismissive at this point, it's time to catch up. You've missed the boat.
https://blog.bitsrc.io/11-javascript-utility-libraries-you-s...
It's too big for a TLDR;
But, just #1 in that list - You need to use a utility library to work with data types in a normalized form? In 2018?? Let that sink in. I hadn't had to do this with any other language.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How much more real world evidence does HN need to see before the "JS isn't a real language" meme is abandoned? Pretty sure we're up to billions of real world value created by software written in Javascript. If you're still dismissive at this point, it's time to catch up. You've missed the boat.
It's a "real" language, it's just not a terribly good or fast one. It's works decently when its use is limited to what it was made for: manipulating web pages. For anything else, the "designed on the back of a used piece of toilet paper" starts to shine through. And no, a JIT can't save you from this, it can only make things acceptable. That it can create "real world value" is an extremely low bar, which is passed by…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a "real" language, it's just not a terribly good or fast one. It's works decently when its use is limited to what it was made for: manipulating web pages. For anything else, the "designed on the back of a used piece of toilet paper" starts to shine through. And no, a JIT can't save you from this, it can only make things acceptable. That it can create "real world value" is an extremely low bar, which is passed by…
> It's a "real" language, it's just not a terribly good or fast one "There are only two kinds of languages: the ones people complain about and the ones nobody uses." - Bjarne Stroustrup
Luckily, filesystem designers worked hard at making their filesystems journaling, fault tolerant, and more. And we stopped complaining angrily about filesystems ruining weeks (or months) of work, because it stopped being a regular occurrence.
We still complain about the flaws of C++ because they are a constant source of pain.
Stroustrup is arguing that if something is popular criticisms against it must therefore be invalid. He's wrong.
I wonder how much of global warming is caused by inefficient code written in higher level languages requiring more powerful hardware to run. It might be infinitesimal but still non-zero.