61–70 of 459 posts
Why is this trend going on with using js in domains where it previously was not a component? Is it to ease shipping new features? To make it easier for contributors once they make the application open source? Good PR?
Oh well, the kool-aid is strong. Next round of what Intel giveth, Microsoft taketh away... Can somebody please design even worse language so that we can progress by reimplementing everything in it, keeping us occupied for the next 20 years?
>even worse language What's wrong with JS, exactly, that isn't made up for by its advantages? I see these 'kool-aid' / 'JS is cancer' comments all the time, but they don't come with any real details. I feel like you've probably never really used JS, if I'm being honest.
On the web, and now suddenly on the desktop, velocity is not what we need. We need quality and consolidation. Down the line can you see any ES6 based API lasting as long as win32? Hell no. Why would I want to risk building a major capital product on such guarantees?
Oh well, the kool-aid is strong. Next round of what Intel giveth, Microsoft taketh away... Can somebody please design even worse language so that we can progress by reimplementing everything in it, keeping us occupied for the next 20 years?
>even worse language What's wrong with JS, exactly, that isn't made up for by its advantages? I see these 'kool-aid' / 'JS is cancer' comments all the time, but they don't come with any real details. I feel like you've probably never really used JS, if I'm being honest.
The language has some very ugly warts (although ES6+ fixes many things), I find that the quality/maturity/stability of third party libraries lags behind other languages, and the whole build/dev environment best practices is constantly in flux and breaking things all the time. Also Electron, for all it's advantages, is renowned for being a massive resource hog making what is otherwise a fairly fast and efficient language appear horribly slow at times.
That being said, developing in JS today is a lot better than 3-4 years ago, and I suspect that that pattern will continue.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not only that, billions of hours of invested time and knowledge will be thrown out of the window instantly and everyone who integrates anything with Office will have to start again from scratch. Literally at least a third of the world is built on bits of spaghetti and duct tape on Office. For developers though, this is chargeable so I'm on the fence :)
Nobody is going to pay you $1200/day to write JavaScript. The converse is true, there is an overload of low-paid JS devs.
Oh well, the kool-aid is strong. Next round of what Intel giveth, Microsoft taketh away... Can somebody please design even worse language so that we can progress by reimplementing everything in it, keeping us occupied for the next 20 years?
>even worse language What's wrong with JS, exactly, that isn't made up for by its advantages? I see these 'kool-aid' / 'JS is cancer' comments all the time, but they don't come with any real details. I feel like you've probably never really used JS, if I'm being honest.
JS's only unique, redeeming quality is its availability through the deployment of web browsers, and the benefits that come with such widespread use. JS wins marketshare because it has marketshare. Any language could have taken JS's place, and most would have been better. WebAssembly, when DOM integration and others become a thing, might allow us to throw JS off its throne.
JS doesn't have advantages on its own to make of for its disadvantages, and relies heavily on extremely advanced JITs to make it borderline acceptable. The language itself still has very clear signs of having been designed on the back of a used napkin (its number type, its "array of int16's" string, "this", "prototype", ...).
I would like to acknowledge that ES2016 brought some things that did remove some retarded areas of JS (like arrow functions, which do not have its own "this" context, unlike the old function expression, class definitions that can briefly make you forget the terrible underlying "prototype" madness, and ways to access proper unicode code points in strings), but we are very far away from having actual advantages here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How much more real world evidence does HN need to see before the "JS isn't a real language" meme is abandoned? Pretty sure we're up to billions of real world value created by software written in Javascript. If you're still dismissive at this point, it's time to catch up. You've missed the boat.
It's a "real" language, it's just not a terribly good or fast one. It's works decently when its use is limited to what it was made for: manipulating web pages. For anything else, the "designed on the back of a used piece of toilet paper" starts to shine through. And no, a JIT can't save you from this, it can only make things acceptable. That it can create "real world value" is an extremely low bar, which is passed by…
From everything I've seen, its performance sits just below Java (4x slower, perhaps) on some standard algorithms or tasks, and significantly faster than languages like Ruby, Python, etc.. I never see hate for those languages like for JS, so I'll disregard that.
>not terribly good
This one never has made sense. What is it missing that makes you hate it so? I think it has rather robust asynchronous handling, 'everything is an object' has lots of nice implications when paired with functionality like Object.keys / .assign, ... So what are the issues you see that make it 'bad'?
Oh well, the kool-aid is strong. Next round of what Intel giveth, Microsoft taketh away... Can somebody please design even worse language so that we can progress by reimplementing everything in it, keeping us occupied for the next 20 years?
>even worse language What's wrong with JS, exactly, that isn't made up for by its advantages? I see these 'kool-aid' / 'JS is cancer' comments all the time, but they don't come with any real details. I feel like you've probably never really used JS, if I'm being honest.
Surprised they didn’t opt for Typescript. Then again, it’s a tweet - looking forward to a longer blog post with technical details when they’re willing to talk about it more.
I assume that they have. Typescript compiles down to Javascript so the tweet is technically correct (written in TS, executed in JS) and there are many out there who won't have a clue what TS is but have at least some grasp of what JS is so JS was probably stated instead of TS to avoid confusion amongst the unwashed masses.
Oh well, the kool-aid is strong. Next round of what Intel giveth, Microsoft taketh away... Can somebody please design even worse language so that we can progress by reimplementing everything in it, keeping us occupied for the next 20 years?
How much more real world evidence does HN need to see before the "JS isn't a real language" meme is abandoned? Pretty sure we're up to billions of real world value created by software written in Javascript. If you're still dismissive at this point, it's time to catch up. You've missed the boat.