RFC: Adopt a modern JavaScript framework for use with MediaWiki • Hacker News Board

Re: RFC: Adopt a modern JavaScript framework for use with MediaWiki

#291

Post by iaml » Sun, Mar 22, 2020, 4:33 PM UTC

orange8 wrote: post #277

iaml wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Typescript aims to model a strongly typed, OPP language That's a rather puzzling statement, to be honest. Strong type system is explicitly one of the non-goals[0]. I write typescript code everyday and most of it is functional. Things like fp-ts[1] make it even more enjoyable. [0] https://github.com/Microsoft/TypeScript/wiki/TypeScript-Desi... [1] https://github.com/gcanti/fp-ts

Am comfortable using both OOP and functional styles, though I do enjoy the flexibility and terseness that can be produced from the functional approach. What I meant by the comment is that when using TS, I just find it more easy and natural to go with the proper OOP approach. I think the very existence of a separate library to enable a more functional style in TS proves this goal has not been met yet.

Functional languages usually have extensive standard library, while js does not. Adding it is not really a goal of ts.

Re: RFC: Adopt a modern JavaScript framework for use with MediaWiki

#292

Post by DonHopkins » Sun, Mar 22, 2020, 10:02 PM UTC

orange8 wrote: post #279

DonHopkins wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Some of us started JS programming over a decade ago, with no strong typing and IDE to hold our hand and tell us every time you make a mistake. The key is just discipline, good design patterns and a good linter. A decade ago isn't very long ago. JavaScript is more than 24 years old, and we had to get along without good design patterns or good linters or good debuggers or good libraries or good documentation or good I…

I may have shaved a few years here and there to calculate that decade ;) I'm still waiting for a browser to come with an inbuilt server like netscaape 3.

You do now understand that TypeScript didn't lose any of the flexibility, power, or paradigms of JavaScript, since it's by definition a strict superset of JavaScript, so it only adds programming paradigms, not subtracts them, right? Or do you disagree with Andrew Hejlsberg, its designer, or the definition of "strict superset"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TypeScript

>TypeScript is an open-source programming language developed and maintained by Microsoft. It is a strict syntactical superset of JavaScript, and adds optional static typing to the language.

Re: RFC: Adopt a modern JavaScript framework for use with MediaWiki

#293

Post by eblanshey » Sun, Mar 29, 2020, 9:30 PM UTC

manigandham wrote: post #123

williamdclt wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is standard HTML in the sense that it's valid HTML, which React JSX isn't, of course. But without the JS runtime it won't do anything, so in the end what's the advantage over React? You can add interactivity without going full SPA with React too after all

It's a subtle but huge difference. In React, using JSX means you can create components and mount them on top of the existing elements on the page. With Vue's HTML templates, the page itself can be the component and everything can become interactive. For example, you can easily output a HTML table from server-side code, then Vue can convert that into a interactive component while using the existing structure and data.…

> For example, you can easily output a HTML table from server-side code, then Vue can convert that into a interactive component while using the existing structure and data.

If you're using vue, you inherently use state or props, and those are handled using {{ myState }} syntax. If you load everything from the backend, it's going to have the actual data in the table. How would you convert the already-rendered HTML to something interactive if the template isn't set up that way?