Fogus: Node.js should become its own language

Post by DTrejo » Tue, Apr 12, 2011, 2:49 PM UTC

  function do_request(req) {
    return long_io_operation(
    req, 
    callback=function(results) {
      return create_something_from(results);
    });
  }

  function do_request(req, callback) {
    long_io_operation(req, function(err, results) {
      callback(err, create_something_from(results));
    });
  }

Post by DTrejo » Tue, Apr 12, 2011, 2:59 PM UTC

scott_s wrote: post #31

travisglines wrote: post #23

As someone who has spent the last six months coding in Node.js, I completely disagree with this notion. One of my favorite advantages of Node is in fact that it is based on javascript. When building my application I can share code between client/sever side (string formatting methods for example) and don't need to do any mental context switching when it comes to languages. I've developed in javascript for years and al…

I think the fundamental objection fogus has is that the language does not support the programming model. For example, I can program object-orientedly in C, but that language does not help me do it. I have to do much of the work myself. So you can program in JavaScript in an event-based way using Node.js, but JavaScript itself does not help you much in doing so. It requires that you do most of the work yourself - work…

Post by scott_s » Tue, Apr 12, 2011, 3:05 PM UTC

DTrejo wrote: post #34

scott_s wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the fundamental objection fogus has is that the language does not support the programming model. For example, I can program object-orientedly in C, but that language does not help me do it. I have to do much of the work myself. So you can program in JavaScript in an event-based way using Node.js, but JavaScript itself does not help you much in doing so. It requires that you do most of the work yourself - work…

It requires that you do most of the work yourself - work that is mechanical, and basically requires that you be a human compiler. It would be a good idea to write some JavaScript before you make statements like these with so much conviction.

Post by demallien » Tue, Apr 12, 2011, 3:11 PM UTC

wladimir wrote: post #8

KeithMajhor wrote: post #3

"My problem with Javascript has always been that expertise is defined more in terms of understanding its faults rather than its features." That's mostly just true for browsers. Javascript itself has very few faults. My biggest annoyances with the language are: Lack of lexical scope, no trailing commas and semicolon usage that differs from C. I could complain all day about my annoyances with browsers (or just IE).

My most common annoyance about Javascript is the lack of bound methods like in Python Ruby etc. When you specify callbacks, you always have to provide the value of 'this' as well. If you forget, it's basically random and you're in for some heavy debugging.

Post by dionidium » Tue, Apr 12, 2011, 3:19 PM UTC

scott_s wrote: post #36

DTrejo wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It requires that you do most of the work yourself - work that is mechanical, and basically requires that you be a human compiler. It would be a good idea to write some JavaScript before you make statements like these with so much conviction.

Fair enough, but the examples I've seen look like continuation passing style ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuation-passing_style ), which is something we know how to abstract behind language syntax and semantics. In what way am I wrong?