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

61–70 of 108 posts

Re: ECMAScript 2015 Approved

#61

Post by kibibu »

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…

Compare to go, where you can go a very long way using "go get", "go build", "go run" etc.

Re: ECMAScript 2015 Approved

#64

Post by dandelany »

totony wrote: post #50
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)

These days you can use CSS 'display: table;' if you still need the table layout engine and don't want to use a non-semantic table tag. It's supported in ie 8+. If you're still supporting ie7... well, I feel bad for you :)

Re: ECMAScript 2015 Approved

#65

Post by altano »

peter_l_downs wrote: post #26
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'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?

To answer your browser compatibility question: https://kangax.github.io/compat-table/es6/

Re: ECMAScript 2015 Approved

#66

Post by altano »

merb wrote: post #60
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 dislike the import part. without writing the from part first you can't evaluate the import..

Yeah, the creator of TypeScript was complaining about this in a presentation. I think the existing syntax "import X from Y" reads more naturally than "from Y import X" but obviously the latter is better for tooling and autocomplete/intellisense. Oh well!

Re: ECMAScript 2015 Approved

#67

Post by woah »

kibibu wrote: post #61
nobleach wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Compare to go, where you can go a very long way using "go get", "go build", "go run" etc.

They just bundled some stuff into the language's CLI. This doesn't mean it somehow doesn't exist or that the language is any simpler.

Re: ECMAScript 2015 Approved

#68

Post by woah »

rspeer wrote: post #47
cnp wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

You can get off the ride right now.

Re: ECMAScript 2015 Approved

#69

Post by cnp »

mattmanser wrote: post #57
RodgerTheGreat wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's an interesting definition of "had to". If you don't like the complexity all that tooling and boilerplate adds to your project, why not just write your application in vanilla CSS, HTML and JavaScript? It still works fine. Most of the time I'd much rather work with imperfect but standard tools than waste time learning the "hot new stuff" and constantly fix what flighty other developers break or abandon. Framewor…

Because vanilla CSS, HTML and JavaScript sucks? Hence all the tools, frameworks and scaffolds...

And last but not least, the benefits that using a compiler provides.
Post reply on HN