Live data from Hacker News

JavaScript: The Modern Parts

amontalenti.com

121–122 of 122 posts

Re: JavaScript: The Modern Parts

#121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> On the one hand it's more "serious" than [legacy] C, C++, Java, and Python because it had first-class functions and real lexical closures from day one. Why do closures make a language "serious"? To me languages are just languages. Seriousness is defined the problem you are solving. Are flight controls serious? Probably. Is yet another small scale CRUD app serious? Probably not. There is a lot of "serious" code writ…

Good question. I'll try to give my answer, but others will have their own opinions. Computer languages move in the direction of supporting "good ideas" as those ideas become generally recognized as being good. Usually those ideas start in academia and gradually find their way to industry. Some examples: Structured ("goto-less") programming, object-oriented programming, automatic memory management, strong typing, lexi…

I find the idea of viewing a language as "serious" to be fundamentally flawed. Every project has a set of requirements and constraints. Usually the pragmatic language choice is dictated by external factors. Things like library support, developer expertise, and tool maturity are much bigger factors for most businesses.

The "serious" professional choice for my company (an OS vendor, with a focus on certifiable systems) is currently C. The tooling we use is for C, the expertise within my company is in C, and the industry that we work with understands and expects C.

At some point, the operating systems industry will transition to more modern languages. Rust is promising, but it is a long way from being a serious consideration for FAA certifiable projects.

Re: JavaScript: The Modern Parts

#122
post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and now ES6 classes and all the rest are deprecated, because Dan Abramov had another idea for again a new design principle that's just less than a year old: Hooks. This is so off the mark it’s not even funny. - Dan did not develop the hooks api - he is also on record saying that people don’t need to re-write their components with hooks - class components have not been deprecated in React

It is indeed not funny, and you're off the mark as well: > Dan did not develop the hooks api I didn't say he developed it > he is also on record saying that people don’t need to re-write their components with hooks So? In my daily work I see it all the time. You think I have a say in that when I have a gig at company X? > class components have not been deprecated in React You've got a point there, indeed not official…

There are even linting rules to ban use of class components, IiRC.

You’re not wrong. Hooks are being pushed HARD for new code.

Post reply on HN