5 ms·

He seems to be arguing that the existence of multiple javascript frameworks is caused by it lacking a standard library, but I don't think you can conclude one b

He seems to be arguing that the existence of multiple javascript frameworks is caused by it lacking a standard library, but I don't think you can conclude one based on the other; as a counter example the Java language has an extensive standard library, yet it has many, many 3rd party frameworks as well. The other thing most of these frameworks provide is cross browser compatibility. If there were a large standard library built into javascript, I fear it would just be more things for different browser makers (especially Microsoft) to implement with different quirks, and you'd still need a 3rd party compatibility framework layered on top of it to be cross browser compatible, only now it would have to cover a large framework instead of just 16 objects.

mnemonicsloth 17y ago
It's not that many js frameworks imply the need for a standard library. It's that many js frameworks, all providing the same functionality that many people want imply the need for a standard library. You mention cross-browser compatibility, he mentions web widgets. I don't see how anyone could oppose standardizing OS stuff like threads and IO on the server. If there were a large standard library built into javascript, I fear it would just be more things for different browser makers (especially Microsoft) to implement with different quirks... It's a lot easier to release your own incompatible (possibly "extended") version of a standard than it is to break existing software. MS can't even phase out IE6, even though they and the companies stuck using it acknowledge that IE6 needs to die. If MS released a browser version that broke many previously-working pages, it would probably trigger antitrust action by the government.
- jacobolus 17y ago
  There are many approaches to concurrency (“stuff like threads and IO”). It’s not at all clear to me that a one-size-fits-all approach is appropriate, and so while few might opposed the idea of having a standard, I posit that whatever standard you actually proposed would be vehemently opposed by those who prefer a different approach.

mnemonicsloth 17y ago

It's not that many js frameworks imply the need for a standard library. It's that many js frameworks, all providing the same functionality that many people want imply the need for a standard library. You mention cross-browser compatibility, he mentions web widgets. I don't see how anyone could oppose standardizing OS stuff like threads and IO on the server. If there were a large standard library built into javascript, I fear it would just be more things for different browser makers (especially Microsoft) to implement with different quirks... It's a lot easier to release your own incompatible (possibly "extended") version of a standard than it is to break existing software. MS can't even phase out IE6, even though they and the companies stuck using it acknowledge that IE6 needs to die. If MS released a browser version that broke many previously-working pages, it would probably trigger antitrust action by the government.

jacobolus 17y ago
There are many approaches to concurrency (“stuff like threads and IO”). It’s not at all clear to me that a one-size-fits-all approach is appropriate, and so while few might opposed the idea of having a standard, I posit that whatever standard you actually proposed would be vehemently opposed by those who prefer a different approach.