Is Underscore.js not good enough for you guys? Really?
This looks like a neat combination of Underscore/LoDash and Cofeescript to me. It's good that people are trying to come up with new stuff.
RubyJS: A JavaScript standard library based on the Ruby core-lib
11–20 of 38 posts
Re: RubyJS: A JavaScript standard library based on the Ruby core-lib
#12I'm not a rubyist, and I can see how this can be nice for ruby developers, but IMHO, if you need javascript - use javascript. Why add another layer of complexity and error proneness? What happens when a different js programmer needs to review your code? Or when you need to write some Node.js code and forgot all about syntax? "The main motive is to have a decent standard library for JavaScript" - jQuery works just fin…
Actually, even without jQuery, the native library for strings, arrays and numbers is usually more than enough. I might have needed something like `capitalize()` once or twice but would probably not include a whole library just for that.
Agree to disagree. The JS native library is incredibly rudimentary by "modern" standards. Even something as basic as comparing two arrays requires either hand rolling a solution or reaching out to a separate library.
Re: RubyJS: A JavaScript standard library based on the Ruby core-lib
#13Is Underscore.js not good enough for you guys? Really?
You might not feel it's necessary for you, but I don't see the need for the critical tone.
They've donated their time to add something new to the ecosystem. You are under no obligation to use it.
Re: RubyJS: A JavaScript standard library based on the Ruby core-lib
#14I'm not a rubyist, and I can see how this can be nice for ruby developers, but IMHO, if you need javascript - use javascript. Why add another layer of complexity and error proneness? What happens when a different js programmer needs to review your code? Or when you need to write some Node.js code and forgot all about syntax? "The main motive is to have a decent standard library for JavaScript" - jQuery works just fin…
> I'm not a rubyist, and I can see how this can be nice for ruby developers, but IMHO, if you need javascript - use javascript.
This is JavaScript, in the same way that jQuery is JavaScript.
Re: RubyJS: A JavaScript standard library based on the Ruby core-lib
#15I'm not a rubyist, and I can see how this can be nice for ruby developers, but IMHO, if you need javascript - use javascript. Why add another layer of complexity and error proneness? What happens when a different js programmer needs to review your code? Or when you need to write some Node.js code and forgot all about syntax? "The main motive is to have a decent standard library for JavaScript" - jQuery works just fin…
[deleted]
Re: RubyJS: A JavaScript standard library based on the Ruby core-lib
#16If you're after a standard library for Javascript, you could do worse than including es5-shim. Which has the advantage of being a library that (partially) implements a standard: Ecmascript 5.
> es5-shim.js and es5-shim.min.js monkey-patch a
> JavaScript context to contain all EcmaScript 5
> methods that can be faithfully emulated with a
> legacy JavaScript engine.
Previous versions of es5-shim included shims for things that cannot be correctly or completely shimmed in ES3 but those have since been separated and I now recommend including es5-shim in basically all web projects to get closer to a modern javascript in most browsers.
Re: RubyJS: A JavaScript standard library based on the Ruby core-lib
#17If you're after a standard library for Javascript, you could do worse than including es5-shim. Which has the advantage of being a library that (partially) implements a standard: Ecmascript 5. > es5-shim.js and es5-shim.min.js monkey-patch a > JavaScript context to contain all EcmaScript 5 > methods that can be faithfully emulated with a > legacy JavaScript engine. It provides Array::map, Array::filter, Array::reduce…
Sure. You could do worse than RubyJS as well. This project is implementing the standard set by the reference implementation of Ruby and its standard library. And having used Ruby a bit, I’ve come to find its standard library quite good, as dynamic languages go. So it doesn’t much matter that ES5 features are “more native”—here and now, it’s still a matter of preference.
Re: RubyJS: A JavaScript standard library based on the Ruby core-lib
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually, even without jQuery, the native library for strings, arrays and numbers is usually more than enough. I might have needed something like `capitalize()` once or twice but would probably not include a whole library just for that.
Agree to disagree. The JS native library is incredibly rudimentary by "modern" standards. Even something as basic as comparing two arrays requires either hand rolling a solution or reaching out to a separate library.
A thousand times this. Javascript as a modern language for non-web things is not mature at all. The amount of date/time, string, and hash utility functions that JS simply does not have is staggering.
Re: RubyJS: A JavaScript standard library based on the Ruby core-lib
#19James Coglan did a lot of this with his excelent JS.Class[1]
Re: RubyJS: A JavaScript standard library based on the Ruby core-lib
#20why