I just wish the best language would win, not the accidentally ubiquitous one. And giving a real choice of language would been even better.
JavaScript at 20
11–20 of 327 posts
Re: JavaScript at 20
#12Re: JavaScript at 20
#13Re: JavaScript at 20
#14I just wish the best language would win, not the accidentally ubiquitous one. And giving a real choice of language would been even better.
But there is no "best language", that's the problem. Compiling down to JS/asm.js is about as good as we'll get, realistically.
Re: JavaScript at 20
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
But there is no "best language", that's the problem. Compiling down to JS/asm.js is about as good as we'll get, realistically.
JavaScript is further from an ideal language than many out there.
Seriously. Even if there was the goalposts would keep moving anyway as things like functional programming get more popular.
My ideal language is one that I can use as often as possible in as many different contexts as possible. JavaScript is alright for that.
Re: JavaScript at 20
#16EDIT: Blockscope... what? More than a few of these changes point to JS being a functional version of PHP, but doesn't blockscope just fundamentally change the language?
Re: JavaScript at 20
#17It does those things poorly, and at great expense.
Eich did one thing, in 10 days, that was market positioned such that it became ubiquitous, and he's been banging that drum ever since -- to everyone's detriment, given how much power over technical direction he wielded at Mozilla, and how much impact Mozilla had on the web pre-Chrome.
Re: JavaScript at 20
#18Re: JavaScript at 20
#19Cool presentation, but holy shit, taking ~2 minutes to load on FF and freezing the browser is not.
Also, I can open it in Lynx. The un-alt'd images mean there's a bit of inaccessible content, but it's actually more or less coherent, which might be useful to those whose machines are struggling with the content or even (potentially) to those rendering opinions on whether the web just sucks.