4 ms·

I doubt the goal is to be JavaScript free. The compilers typically enhance the language or give you access to functionality that is destined to land in the futu

I doubt the goal is to be JavaScript free. The compilers typically enhance the language or give you access to functionality that is destined to land in the future JavaScript. ES6+ shows a lot of promise and thanks to Babel we can use those features now.

smt88 11y ago
Let me clarify what I mean by "JavaScript-free": they don't want any of their employees writing JavaScript by hand anymore, whether it be ES6, ES2015, or ES2020. TypeScript and Flow are supersets, but Clojure (and many other compile-to-JavaScript languages) are completely different.
- Wintamute 11y ago
  Your insider knowledge of the technical policies of Facebook, Google, MS, etc is truly impressive. And ES2020 too? Somebody write this down quick!
  - smt88 11y ago
    I understand what it's like to be emotionally invested in a particular language or technology. It's usually a result of not having used something better[1] or just having invested a lot of time into that technology. The good news is that a lot of programming skills are fungible, and you (like me) will eventually use things you like more than you expected -- perhaps even more than you like JavaScript. The time you invested won't be wasted. 1. http://www.paulgraham.com/avg.html http://www.paulgraham.com/avg.html
    - Wintamute 11y ago
      You assume a lot about me! Don't worry ... I'm 35, I've been around the block, dipped in and out of a few languages and platforms :) And if we're talking about emotional investment in technology ... I think that's where most of the JS shaming comments we're seeing on this thread are coming from. People feel a bit threatened by it because it seems like it's eating a lot of things at the moment. They'd be better off following your advice and stop sniping at it and take an interest.
- danneu 11y ago
  No, they just want some static tooling on top of a dynamic language. We use Typed Clojure where I work. To say it's because we "don't want to write Clojure by hand anymore" would be nonsense. Reading your comments in this thread, I think you'll find out one day that people just have different appetites for different trade-offs and that's really all there is to it. No need to wheedle, condescend, or link Paul Graham essays.

smt88 11y ago

Let me clarify what I mean by "JavaScript-free": they don't want any of their employees writing JavaScript by hand anymore, whether it be ES6, ES2015, or ES2020. TypeScript and Flow are supersets, but Clojure (and many other compile-to-JavaScript languages) are completely different.

Wintamute 11y ago
Your insider knowledge of the technical policies of Facebook, Google, MS, etc is truly impressive. And ES2020 too? Somebody write this down quick!
- smt88 11y ago
  I understand what it's like to be emotionally invested in a particular language or technology. It's usually a result of not having used something better[1] or just having invested a lot of time into that technology. The good news is that a lot of programming skills are fungible, and you (like me) will eventually use things you like more than you expected -- perhaps even more than you like JavaScript. The time you invested won't be wasted. 1. http://www.paulgraham.com/avg.html http://www.paulgraham.com/avg.html
  - Wintamute 11y ago
    You assume a lot about me! Don't worry ... I'm 35, I've been around the block, dipped in and out of a few languages and platforms :) And if we're talking about emotional investment in technology ... I think that's where most of the JS shaming comments we're seeing on this thread are coming from. People feel a bit threatened by it because it seems like it's eating a lot of things at the moment. They'd be better off following your advice and stop sniping at it and take an interest.
danneu 11y ago
No, they just want some static tooling on top of a dynamic language. We use Typed Clojure where I work. To say it's because we "don't want to write Clojure by hand anymore" would be nonsense. Reading your comments in this thread, I think you'll find out one day that people just have different appetites for different trade-offs and that's really all there is to it. No need to wheedle, condescend, or link Paul Graham essays.