4 ms·
I think javascript is intrinsically going to be one of the worst examples of that. Stemming back to the days when javascript programmers learned that using a li
by ubercore 11y ago
I think javascript is intrinsically going to be one of the worst examples of that. Stemming back to the days when javascript programmers learned that using a library like (then jQuery) lodash is the _only_ way to correctly get your code to work in all cases. That culture then became ingrained, and in my opinion helped lead to the state most JS packages are in these days.
In my experience, this is one of the greatest things about the new prevalence of tools like babel; it pushes that abstraction layer down below in-code dependancies. There's still a dependency to manage, but it's not a library import or similar.
- habitue 11y agoBabel doesn't solve the problem of having a minimal standard library. Unlike say Python or Ruby, where batteries are included, JS is roll it yourself, add a dependency, or go without in almost every case. Even for seemingly trivial things like "Array#contains"
- ubercore 11y agoIt may not help that case in particular, but there's a _lot_ that ES6/ES2015 add to the table: http://babeljs.io/docs/learn-es2015/ http://babeljs.io/docs/learn-es2015/ A lot of things in there would need a library for cross-browser compatibility still. That's my point, but I take yours as well. It's still a very BYOL (bring your own library) kind of a language!