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

JavaScript is not suitable for large web apps

blogs.adobe.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 218 posts

Re: JavaScript is not suitable for large web apps

#181

Post by klodolph »

noblethrasher wrote: post #144
neilk wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is t3h awesome, but not an option in either language under consideration, as far as I know. Unless you used a Haskell-to-JS compiler. I apologize if I implied that static typing = Java's kind of typing.

Java doesn't have pattern matching or nice tuple syntax but it does have Algebraic Data Types. Abstract classes are sum types (the dervived classes are the variants) while interfaces are (awkward) product types.

It's not the interfaces that are product types, but the concrete classes which correspond to product types.

Interfaces are a different concept. In functional programming, an implementation of an interface would extend the domain of polymorphic functions that use that interface. The same can be said about Java, if you tilt your head funny and don't need to communicate with other Java programmers, and if you only care about single argument dispatch.

Re: JavaScript is not suitable for large web apps

#182

Post by daba »

voidr wrote: post #14

This article only proves the author's incompetence to develop and maintain large JavaScript projects, nothing more. > I don’t know why but JavaScript programmers tend to put all of their code into few files. That’s not so useful, though, if you want to have multiple developers work on the same project. Splitting up the code into multiple files enabled us to scale the project. Let me rephrase that: "I don’t know why b…

In my opinion "That’s not so useful, though, if you want to have multiple developers work on the same project." is much more revealing. Has this guy never heard of VCS? If you use a modern VCS it does not make any difference if you split your source into lots of different files or have it all in one. At least not regarding the number of developers working on the project.

Re: JavaScript is not suitable for large web apps

#183

Post by kamjam »

johncoltrane wrote: post #177
Hovertruck wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no such thing as a jQuery Programmer. There are JavaScript programmers who are familiar with jQuery.

There are lots of jQuery programmers. They know (how to read the docs of) the whole API and close to nothing about low-level JS. jQuery is a powerful and useful tool but it has grown to "replace" JS in the minds of many. Just to be clear: I don't like this situation at all.

Yes, sadly you are right, and it's cos of this (IMO) that you end up in this situation. I'd hire an average JS guy over a average jQuery guy any day.

Re: JavaScript is not suitable for large web apps

#185

Post by mping »

_pferreir_ wrote: post #172
mping wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GWT doesn't get the fair share of respect it deserves. It's not enterprise java (j2ee and such), it's a toolkit that (amongst other things) lets you write and debug java, that gets compiled to javascript in the end. GWT is not modular in the same sense as jQuery/underscore/backbone/any other js library, that's its weakness but also its strength. Also, the same modularity of those libs is simultaneously its strength a…

I know what GWT is. I agree that it provides out of the box certain functionalities that require a bit of "glue code" when using other frameworks. However, the whole "just write a desktop app and we will turn it into a web app" philosophy doesn't seem very web-oriented to me. Yes, it works, it's easy, but if one day you want to change your client-side code (i.e. use a different framework or something) you'll most lik…

You can do standard REST, or whatever you want with GWT. IMHO what really sucks with GWT is the language; Java really sucks sometimes and its full of ceremony. Also, I think they made the same mistake that the Swing guys did: they provided for a toolkit but they didn't provide a framework, ie, a standard way of putting it all together.

Anyway, you can check what the jBoss guys are doing with GWT, looks good even for Java: http://www.jboss.org/errai I think that if Java ever gets proper closures it will may be more of an acceptable solution for some cases.

Re: JavaScript is not suitable for large web apps

#186

Post by itsbits »

lowboy wrote: post #176
Hovertruck wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no such thing as a jQuery Programmer. There are JavaScript programmers who are familiar with jQuery.

Sadly, I think there are jQuery "programmers".

i garee..not all so called JQuery programmers can be atleast able to debug a low level JS...

Re: JavaScript is not suitable for large web apps

#187

Post by alexscheelmeyer »

neilk wrote: post #175
prophetjohn wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>In my experience most Java developers don't even do that. They... It's awesome how, on Hacker News, people whose job require them primarily write code in Java are some sort of stupid luddites ready to be easily generalized as the worst kind of programmer. Way to stay objective, guys.

Fair point -- it's unfair to stereotype Java developers. In my mind, I meant "most developers" and I happened to be talking about Java. But that distinction wasn't clear. It's obvious that (in the OP's case) using JavaScript didn't help the problem either -- but that was my point. Bad design is bad design. I am not making a strong claim that JS is better.

I like how you apologize for stereotyping Java developers by clarifying that you really wanted to stereotype ALL kinds of developers.

Re: JavaScript is not suitable for large web apps

#188

Post by lmm »

mistercow wrote: post #67
munificent wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You don't need a static type system to make sure that your functions are sane and consistent, and you don't have to be John Resig either. Right, and you can do structured programming in assembly. But when the language or tools don't help you do that, there are examples like the one the author points out where developers don't. Don't mistake utility (what can be done) for usability (what is easy to do). Usability al…

> First of all, put a comment at the top of your function that says what to expect about the return value. I want a language that gives me a nice pleasant syntax for doing that. And I want a magic pony; but as I said, declaring the return type doesn't tell users anywhere near all they need to know in many cases. Truly self documenting code doesn't exist, and will probably never exist. And since you can't usefully dis…

>And I want a magic pony; but as I said, declaring the return type doesn't tell users anywhere near all they need to know in many cases.

Then you're doing it wrong. Write types that encapsulate all the information you need. Don't allow construction of invalid instances. It's not rocket science.

Re: JavaScript is not suitable for large web apps

#189

Post by [deleted] »

dxbydt wrote: post #30

For a certain definition of "large" and for certain domains ( especially finance ) his argument is very, very valid. 200 average developers working with GWT->JS are anyday going to be more productive than coding native JS to get the same functionality. This isn't anti-JS...end of the day if you are on the web your code is JS. Thing is, how do you get there - do you hire 20 pricey smart JQuery guys, or 200 average Jav…

[deleted]

Re: JavaScript is not suitable for large web apps

#190

Post by lmm »

chrisbroadfoot wrote: post #110
Karunamon wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't write programs in assembly. Use a high level language that translates down to assembly. Yknow, most every language ever. If you had read the article, you'd see that the author made this comparison.

It's a false analogy. Javascript is just as high level as Java or CoffeeScript. Sure, it's the "assembly language of the web," but Javascript certainly cannot be compared to assembly language in this way.

It really is a lower-level language than Java or CoffeeScript - it lacks advanced type constructs, much like C.
Post reply on HN