Live data from Hacker News

Douglas Crockford on JavaScript

digest.browsertech.com

11–20 of 202 posts

Re: Douglas Crockford on JavaScript

#11

Ok show me another language which has near native performance, gradual typing (thinking TypeScript here), and lets me do lightweight functional and lightweight OO programming.

Typescript is very nice, just need to get rid of the javascript underneath.

Re: Douglas Crockford on JavaScript

#13

Ok show me another language which has near native performance, gradual typing (thinking TypeScript here), and lets me do lightweight functional and lightweight OO programming.

> has near native performance

what do you mean by this?

https://github.com/niklas-heer/speed-comparison

https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/...

Re: Douglas Crockford on JavaScript

#14

Ok show me another language which has near native performance, gradual typing (thinking TypeScript here), and lets me do lightweight functional and lightweight OO programming.

How about Dart/Flutter?

I forgot to add "not controlled by a single corporation" to my list of requirements. Also not gradually typed, I think? But I would consider it if it weren't all tied into Google and had a larger ecosystem.

Re: Douglas Crockford on JavaScript

#16

> "[...] we are crushing ourselves with the accumulated complexity we’ve piled on top of bad foundations [...]" The same could be said about plain HTML/CSS though. I think the author is correct overall and I don't really see improvement on the horizon. WebAssembly, while great that it exists, can morph browsers into some poor mans virtual operating system and this can lead to a less open web. We already see more clos…

> The same could be said about plain HTML/CSS though.

Genuine question: How much of the complexity of working with HTML/CSS is unnecessary and how much is inherent to the problem they solve? Is it as bad as with Javascript?

I would say that we, for the most part, have a very clear idea of how we could (theoretically) replace Javascript with something much better.

I don't know of alternative layout languages, so I don't know how good CSS is in comparison. And what could we replace HTML with? My general appreciation, from my ignorance, is that they are not that bad.

Re: Douglas Crockford on JavaScript

#17

Ok show me another language which has near native performance, gradual typing (thinking TypeScript here), and lets me do lightweight functional and lightweight OO programming.

How about Dart/Flutter?

Moving the Web to Dart/Flutter would cost billions. How would it help in ANY way solving any challenge that currently exists? What even are these challenges? The OP is pretty blurry on that.

Re: Douglas Crockford on JavaScript

#18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about Dart/Flutter?

I forgot to add "not controlled by a single corporation" to my list of requirements. Also not gradually typed, I think? But I would consider it if it weren't all tied into Google and had a larger ecosystem.

Isn't Typescript "controlled" by Microsoft?

Re: Douglas Crockford on JavaScript

#20

Ok show me another language which has near native performance, gradual typing (thinking TypeScript here), and lets me do lightweight functional and lightweight OO programming.

How about Dart/Flutter?

Last time I looked into it Flutter performance wasn't great.
Post reply on HN