161–170 of 266 posts
It is done, but not dead? to me that sounds like a contradiction given that there is always a need for security patches and also given the limitations mentioned such as improving bundle size.
"We will address critical security concerns as they arise."
Perhaps a better term than "done" is "feature complete".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you explain why you find mutability to be a showstopper? Is this a front end developer thing? I like my consts and all where relevant, but I don't see why mutability is such a problem. Javascript is an imperative language where almost everything more complicated than a number is mutable. I see the lack of creating copies of objects with every operation as a benefit because of the RAM and CPU cycles it saves. Is i…
Basically, unexpected behavior. One of the "footguns" is that it's easy to write to a Moment object when you mean to be reading from it. And by the way, you can mutate objects declared with `const` in JS - you just can't reassign them.
Good for them. Open Source seems to have an irrational fear of done . Done is good. Done should be the goal. But it’s not. Because if you’re not adding new features and pushing code changes every day, your project is abandoned , dead . To quote another thread from two minutes ago: “I’m quite sad to see the end of Moment.js” I wish the was a way to fix this attitude. So that project maintainers didn’t need to write tw…
This isn't a universal attitude. Numerous language ecosystems exist where it's completely normal to use dependencies that haven't been updated in a while _because_ they warrant no change.
This is a problem with the general attitude of the community of JavaScript developers.
And they're too stuck in their JS ecosystem bubble to realize this isn't necessarily "normal" or "the way things should/have to be."
I thought there would be more discussion here surrounding the recent update to Lighthouse, whereby it warns you if you're using Moment.js and suggests alternatives. There was some back-and-forth about this on Twitter the other day: https://twitter.com/addyosmani/status/1304676118822174721
> used in millions of projects Are there really millions of not-toy javascript projects out there?
Not all of us are in a situation where we're iterating through the JavaScript new hotness every couple years and still have significant legacy systems to maintain and support.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Basically, unexpected behavior. One of the "footguns" is that it's easy to write to a Moment object when you mean to be reading from it. And by the way, you can mutate objects declared with `const` in JS - you just can't reassign them.
I don't view the mutability of moment as a complete show stopper, though. If you limit the surface area of the mutability by hiding the underlying moment object within an abstraction, then you can at the very least keep the chances of misusing moment to a minimum.