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

ECMAScript 2015 Approved

ecma-international.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 108 posts

Re: ECMAScript 2015 Approved

#41

Post by wmichelin »

fintler wrote: post #16

If you've been focusing on another language for a few years, you might not recognize JavaScript anymore. It's pretty awesome now. Here's an example of what it looks like: http://pastebin.com/raw.php?i=yEB4mrty As someone who usually works with C, Scala, and Java -- I'm currently working on a small app built on ec6/7 babel, npm, jspm, system.js, aurelia, gulp, etc. It's been a great experience so far.

You could write that code to be a little more human readable. That appears to be complicated for the sake of being complicated. Elegance doesn't have to be complexity, or trying to write as few lines as possible.

http://photos3.meetupstatic.com/photos/event/4/b/c/2/600_436...

Re: ECMAScript 2015 Approved

#42

Post by cnp »

nobleach wrote: post #40
casus wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "a small app built on ec6/7 babel, npm, jspm, system.js, aurelia, gulp, etc" Part of the problem with the Javascript ecosystem is that you have to use so many different tools/libraries to create a "simple" app.

Every language these days has its "stack" for development. Sure you could sit down with vim and javac and write a "simple app". But once you use Gradle/Maven to handle dependencies and build process. Once you use a nice unit testing framework... Why on earth would you not just fire it up and tune it for every project? Ruby, C# and every other language I've used has this "development stack" mentality, and now when I t…

When I made the transition over to JS from another language a few years ago, this was exactly how I did it; I expected to have some kind of system in place that provided the tooling I needed to get the language that I wanted, and immediately landed on Node, preprocessors, etc, easing the transition immensely.

Re: ECMAScript 2015 Approved

#43

Post by pjmlp »

serve_yay wrote: post #33
peter_l_downs wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been away from JS for about 10 months and... cool, but, fuck, that changed quickly. Time to get caught back up to speed. Is ES6 now actually viable, in that it's supported by most users' browsers? If not, are there popular compilers for ES5?

"Everyone" is using Babel now. A lot of ES6 features are making their way into browsers and node, but there's so much variation that a transpile step is needed. Babel is nice but currently quite slow. Babel has a REPL you can play with here: http://babeljs.io/repl/#?experimental=true&evaluate=true&loo...

In this side of the galaxy still looks like JSF with RichFaces and ASP.NET WebForms.

Re: ECMAScript 2015 Approved

#44

Post by vorg »

nobleach wrote: post #40
casus wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "a small app built on ec6/7 babel, npm, jspm, system.js, aurelia, gulp, etc" Part of the problem with the Javascript ecosystem is that you have to use so many different tools/libraries to create a "simple" app.

Every language these days has its "stack" for development. Sure you could sit down with vim and javac and write a "simple app". But once you use Gradle/Maven to handle dependencies and build process. Once you use a nice unit testing framework... Why on earth would you not just fire it up and tune it for every project? Ruby, C# and every other language I've used has this "development stack" mentality, and now when I t…

> javac and write a "simple app". But once you use Gradle/Maven to handle dependencies and build

Using Gradle or Maven to handle builds for Java require you to learn another syntax and vocabulary, i.e. Groovy or XML. In the case of Gradle/Groovy, if you set up the stack first, you'd need to learn another programming language before you even write your "simple app" in your target language Java, which is tedious at best. Perhaps Ruby, C#, and those other languages you've used use the target language for the build which makes more sense.

Re: ECMAScript 2015 Approved

#45

Post by notNow »

gravity13 wrote: post #24
Strilanc wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nit: single line lambdas can be written like `a => a + 1` instead of `a => { return a + 1 }`. Cuts the amount of bracket nesting.

After working with es6 for a bit (with babel), I still think I prefer CoffeeScript mostly because it's annoying to ensure brackets/parenthesis are closed properly.

I compile JS files to CoffeeScript now only for the readability boost when I need to understand the code very quickly without all those parentheses or brackets getting in my way.

Re: ECMAScript 2015 Approved

#46

Post by eltaco »

serve_yay wrote: post #33
peter_l_downs wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been away from JS for about 10 months and... cool, but, fuck, that changed quickly. Time to get caught back up to speed. Is ES6 now actually viable, in that it's supported by most users' browsers? If not, are there popular compilers for ES5?

"Everyone" is using Babel now. A lot of ES6 features are making their way into browsers and node, but there's so much variation that a transpile step is needed. Babel is nice but currently quite slow. Babel has a REPL you can play with here: http://babeljs.io/repl/#?experimental=true&evaluate=true&loo...

There's currently a issue for "speed": https://github.com/babel/babel/issues/1486. Looks like it complied ember core from 50s to 18s now.

Re: ECMAScript 2015 Approved

#47

Post by rspeer »

cnp wrote: post #38
casus wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "a small app built on ec6/7 babel, npm, jspm, system.js, aurelia, gulp, etc" Part of the problem with the Javascript ecosystem is that you have to use so many different tools/libraries to create a "simple" app.

Once you do it once, its done. Also, tons of scaffolds out there to choose from / tweak. This sort of flexibility is a good thing.

Eh. JS is a very useful language but something has to get us out of this explosion of tools eventually.

For the last couple of projects I've worked on, I've had to choose:

- The scaffold

- The build tool

- The actually-good language variant that compiles to JS that a browser can run

- The tool that makes the build tool work with the scaffold

- The tool that makes the build tool work with the language variant

And by the time I make any progress, one of those has made a compatibility-breaking update, or even been abandoned and replaced by something better.

Great that things keep getting better, but at some point I want to get off the ride.

Re: ECMAScript 2015 Approved

#48

Post by david-given »

killface wrote: post #20
sirsuki wrote: post #11

It's about fricken time! Talk about procrastination! Now I have to wait for browsers to get off their little snowflake asses and update. Oh wait then there is all those paranoids who use WinXP with IE8. Damn it, I'll be dead by the time this stuff is available universally.

At some point, you just need to stop caring about those people. I know some of you can't professionally, but personally, there's no need to even pretend to support IE <= 11. If they want to run an old os and old browser, they don't get to use my service. No sweat off my balls.

Finding actual numbers seems to be harder than it should be, but this page:

https://www.netmarketshare.com/browser-market-share.aspx?qpr...

...suggests that IE 8, 9 and 10 combined have about ~28% market share. Of course, I don't know what they're measuring --- somewhere like github is going to see a very different balance of browsers than, say, Amazon --- but that's a hell of a lot, roughly equal to the IE 11 market share. I'd say that's way too much to dismiss out of hand.

Edit: I've since found this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_browsers#Su...

That suggestions that netmarketshare are consistently measuring IE high --- other people show IE at about half that, and Chrome at about double what netmarketshare do. Which, of course, makes it even more important to find out who your audience are before giving up support for old browsers.

Re: ECMAScript 2015 Approved

#49

Post by coldtea »

fintler wrote: post #16

If you've been focusing on another language for a few years, you might not recognize JavaScript anymore. It's pretty awesome now. Here's an example of what it looks like: http://pastebin.com/raw.php?i=yEB4mrty As someone who usually works with C, Scala, and Java -- I'm currently working on a small app built on ec6/7 babel, npm, jspm, system.js, aurelia, gulp, etc. It's been a great experience so far.

>I'm currently working on a small app built on ec6/7 babel, npm, jspm, system.js, aurelia, gulp, etc. It's been a great experience so far.

Oh, the irony...

Re: ECMAScript 2015 Approved

#50

Post by totony »

brianzelip wrote: post #28

oh brother does their (` ` based) web layout need an update!

I do a lot of web design and you often have to use table for compatibility reasons or straight up no other way is supported (vertical alignment or same height for example, even if flexbox does it now IE 8 doesn't support it)
Post reply on HN