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

JavaScript is Good, Actually

ashfurrow.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 369 posts

Re: JavaScript is Good, Actually

#111

Post by philfrasty »

sloxy wrote: post #93
onra87 wrote: post #35

This is a lot of lines for not saying much. I was expecting much more from a "world-class software developer"(see About section) :) Saying that the community is more advanced in the JavaScript ecosystem than it is in the iOS world is a nonsense to me. Don't we have more JS developers than iOS developers ? Moreover, saying that JS syntax is really good with tools like TypeScript is another nonsense. You can also write…

That's interesting because I also picked up on that: "I am a world-class software developer living in New York’s East Village" and I just thought, hmm, here's this guy with ~5 years of ~professional dev(mainly with iOS) and he self qualifies himself as world class. Looking at his bio, I see he's worked for 3 companies doing quite ordinary things. I would love to know what gave him the confidence/ignorance to describe…

calculatePaycheck("i am a world class programmer") > calculatePaycheck("i am a programmer")

Re: JavaScript is Good, Actually

#112

Post by SigmundA »

Secretmapper wrote: post #100
osrec wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was thinking of arrays of objects, where the keys are repeated for each object in the array.

I'm still a bit confused how this is a problem. Can you elaborate? Is there any serialisation standard that specifically addresses this? I know YAML and TOML doesn't at least (correct me if I"m wrong)

Something like Protobuf where there is a schema is defined means metadata like key name does not get repeated for every object, its only the values.

No more trying to have short names to keep file size down.

Re: JavaScript is Good, Actually

#113

Post by 1897234234235 »

cm2187 wrote: post #31

To me JavaScript is very similar to VBA. Based on its own merits it’s a pretty average language with lots of design flaws. But it has a monopoly for what it does (browser/cross platform vs ms office scripting) and most of its users never really got a chance to solve the same problems with a better language. And like VBA, it is probably the only language known to the bulk of it user base (semi-amateur web designers vs…

>Based on its own merits it’s a pretty average language with lots of design flaws.

I don't really judge a language based on the number of design flaws. That is like judging a computer based only on its specs.

>and most of its users never really got a chance to solve the same problems with a better language.

I don't really think there is such a thing as "better languages". Also your statement is probably true, and was said about php as well. It is only true though because it has the most number of people using it, so will have the highest percentage of casual programmers. As with php though, you also have very good programmers using it.

I am not really sure what the point of characterising the users is other than to subtitute for a lack of any arguments related to the language. But of course, the arguments on these topics are just a bunch of copy and paste from "list of reasons javascript sucks" articles. These just list design flaws like === and so on.

"My PC is better because it has 2GB more ram than the mac". etc....

>web assembly

Web Assembly is not supposed to remove javascript, it is supposed to be used in addition to it when you need high performance. If people try to promote it as a way to not have to use javascript, it will just result in a more fragmented client-side programming situation, where libraries are not available for particular languages, etc.

Re: JavaScript is Good, Actually

#114

Post by eludwig »

vinayms wrote: post #68

I am primarily a C++ dev and had to use JS for web development. Having no previous scripting experience, I was gobsmacked at the ease and freedom it offered, especially wrt string processing. You need to have been a monolingual C++ dev to appreciate what I said. I don't hesitate to say I like JS. These days I try creating any small experimental programs I need in JS and run them in FF instead of starting the whole bu…

>>I was gobsmacked at the ease and freedom it offered

Totally agreed. Same coming from Java. It is crazy how much I prefer it over Java. Maybe this is a consequence of coming from verbose languages? The lack of boilerplate is very refreshing!

Re: JavaScript is Good, Actually

#115

Post by onra87 »

Vinnl wrote: post #104
onra87 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the end, you have to transpile your code to JavaScript. Whether you are writing TypeScript or Swift code. But I agree, Typescript has more similarities with JS than Swift does.

That is true, but there are a lot of risks associated with transpiling completely different languages that are not there when using TypeScript. For example, if TypeScript ever goes away, you simply transpile it to Javascript once (i.e. strip away the explicit type annotations) and continue to work on the resulting Javascript - in a different language, that would be a complete mess. Furthermore, TypeScript integrates…

I totally agree with you. My point here was just to prove that you cannot sell the beauty of JavaScript syntax by saying that you have to use TypeScript :)

Re: JavaScript is Good, Actually

#116

Post by martin_drapeau »

I forgive Javascript any "language flaws" it might have. Why? Because the truly beautiful thing about Javascript is that you can write a program, send anyone a URL and they can run it. No compilation, no installation - just open the URL in any browser. No other language in the world can do this in such a universal way. Simplicity is bliss.

Re: JavaScript is Good, Actually

#117

Post by Grue3 »

When someone makes a statement like this, it raises the question: compared to what? What other languages does the author have experience in to proclaim that Javascript is good?

Also I never seen anyone complain about Electron apps because of the language they're written in. The main complaint is that it's a tremendous waste of computer resources. If your chat app needs more than 1gb of RAM, I don't care what language it's written it, it sucks period.

Re: JavaScript is Good, Actually

#118

Post by peterbraden »

Oh man, I hate these articles as they bring out the trolls.

Javascript is a great language because it allows you to develop incredibly fast (scripting language) for a platform that runs everywhere (the web).

It used to be far simpler, but IMHO, insecurity because of all of the FUD that this sort of article prescribes, has meant that the language has bloated to incorporate all sorts of syntax improvements and new patterns.

It's not a systems programming language, so all the comparisons against typed, compiled languages are moot. Introducing transpiling as a mandatory pattern for JS development was a mistake.

The reason JS has won is because the web has won. Arguing about its merits misses the point.

Re: JavaScript is Good, Actually

#119

Post by sametmax »

alephnan wrote: post #23
sametmax wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

JSON is seldom JS now, as any language has had encoder/decoder built in for years.

Sure, but there is boilerplate and abstractions that are needed in a language like Java or Scala. In JavaScript, it's a first-class citizen of the language.

Well you must compare a dynamic language with another dynamic language. It would be more fair to compare JS to Python or Ruby if you talk about ease of use.

Re: JavaScript is Good, Actually

#120

Post by mratzloff »

sloxy wrote: post #93
onra87 wrote: post #35

This is a lot of lines for not saying much. I was expecting much more from a "world-class software developer"(see About section) :) Saying that the community is more advanced in the JavaScript ecosystem than it is in the iOS world is a nonsense to me. Don't we have more JS developers than iOS developers ? Moreover, saying that JS syntax is really good with tools like TypeScript is another nonsense. You can also write…

That's interesting because I also picked up on that: "I am a world-class software developer living in New York’s East Village" and I just thought, hmm, here's this guy with ~5 years of ~professional dev(mainly with iOS) and he self qualifies himself as world class. Looking at his bio, I see he's worked for 3 companies doing quite ordinary things. I would love to know what gave him the confidence/ignorance to describe…

Let's stick to the content of the article and not tear down our fellow engineers.
Post reply on HN