101–110 of 120 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Facebook is doing something that enables better IDE support for JS, so static typing isn't absolutely required, it just makes it a lot easier. I forgot the projects name though, the IDE part was also not open sourced back then.
Their optional typing for JS is called Flow, and they've open sourced an IDE of sorts (a suite of Atom plugins) called Nuclide ( http://nuclide.io/ ).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't know that there's no good reason to do what I do. I use many different tools. Try ed sometime, it might improve your productivity. Professional? I deliver and get paid.
How about some specific examples instead of "I use `cat` and I'm right"? >You don't know that there's no good reason to do what I do. Exactly. Show us.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that WebStorm is decent JavaScript IDE but if we 're talking about editing HTML/CSS/Sass, WebStorm is not any better than plethora of other text editors. IMO basic problem lies in fact that we're still trying to edit hierarchical tree structures of HTML and CSS/SCSS as a plain text instead of editing underlying tree structure. I think that good HTML/CSS editor should operate on tree and every CSS rule and eve…
I agree with edwinnathaniel, IntelliJ with its browser JavaScript debugging plugins is pretty awesome and I find it a fantastic JavaScript IDE. I am curious what use cases you have for editing in the fashion of your demo video? I don't find myself frequently wanting to view just fonts in a css file. I either have specific rules I want to edit, or I pull up reused fonts and colours into re-used classes (or less variab…
good editor could pull up reused fonts and colours automatically (detecting if they the same in various nodes).
> I either have specific rules I want to edit
Yes, I'm also making possibility of filtering by specific rules and finding by CSS selector (in HTML also)
And different filters are just a part of the editor. Actually, my first idea was creating something that would allow to make quick changes that are super easy when operating on tree, but you must do them by hand in text editors (e.g. operations like "move to parent", "wrap this HTML element in new `div` element etc.).
I also want editor to be operable without keyboard/mouse switching. And because when I make websites I often use mouse to test in browser all functions, I want good mouse support and be able to change e.g. top from 0px to 10px using only mouse. This is possible in e.g. DevTools, why not to put this feature in editor?
> Edit: as I think about the idea, it would be awesome if I could click on
> any html element in a file and it would be able to statically analyze and
> show all applicable css selectors.
Yes. It would be nice, although I didn't solve this from technical perspective yet.
But for now I think about something like in Brackets - you edit HTML and could edit styles in place without switching to the other file.
The process is called compilation, and the tools are called compilers!
> This process is called transpilation and there are tools called transpilers which takes care of it for you. The process is called compilation, and the tools are called compilers!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some of those features are only possible because Java is statically typed. They couldnt exist in the same way for "pure" JavaScript.
Facebook is doing something that enables better IDE support for JS, so static typing isn't absolutely required, it just makes it a lot easier. I forgot the projects name though, the IDE part was also not open sourced back then.
Why not just use a different language altogether? One that was designed with static type checking from the ground up?
Maybe Facebook likes the pain, they also pushed PHP further than anyone else was willing to. Burning insane amounts of resources with a somewhat disappointing result.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a dependency graph. It's just a data structure. You can do that in any language. Saying you need automake for a build system, or would gain anything from doing so compared to a native system, is akin to saying you need another language for arrays. Regarding your popularity argument: amongst other JS developers you'd get more network effect from gulp. If your backend is, say, Python or Ruby learning automake woul…
The point is that shell is not "another language", it's a foundation of the entire world of modern programming, not some esoteric thing for a single purpose.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What? http://gnuwin32.sourceforge.net/packages/make.htm
It's still not cross platform. Changes made to the Makefile under one OS might break easily under the other OS's.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wrote code in Notepad for years. Often now I use cat instead. Sometimes even ed, which is surprisingly useful for many editing tasks. Knowing how to do things in the most basic, fundamental way is nourishing. And I've heard from many people that the JavaScript ecosystem—by which they seem to mean all the stuff they hear that everyone else is using—makes them feel overwhelmed. So it's good to have this clear explana…
Of course you can write code using cat but there is no good reason to do so. That would be like being a carpenter who refuses to use powertools and instead relies on manually operated ones. If you don't understand how to use the tools of the trade that will greatly improve your productivity, then you simply are not a professional.
The OP may not be talking about editing files line by line.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Shell and make are pervasive. If you're not comfortable with them, you will glean great value from becoming so. Your perspective rings to me like "There's plenty of technical literature in Mandarin; learning English just to ...." Not wrong, per se. But profoundly limiting, and to an extent you won't comprehend until you've crossed that knowledge barrier. Elswhere in this comment stream someone talks about the 'innova…
It's a dependency graph. It's just a data structure. You can do that in any language. Saying you need automake for a build system, or would gain anything from doing so compared to a native system, is akin to saying you need another language for arrays. Regarding your popularity argument: amongst other JS developers you'd get more network effect from gulp. If your backend is, say, Python or Ruby learning automake woul…
The beauty of Make is that it doesn't care what languages the scripts are written that it's running.
In my JS projects I typically have Makefiles that use a combination of: JS, bash and Python
If you compile NodeJS from source, guess what command you have to type in...
I feel being more open minded in terms of programing languages will make you a better and more powerful programmer.