3 ms·
I don't agree with this. For example I can get things done using Clojure incredibly fast. The development speed with it is simply unparalleled. And since they i
by edem 10y ago
I don't agree with this. For example I can get things done using Clojure incredibly fast. The development speed with it is simply unparalleled. And since they introduced clojure.spec you get the best of both worlds (static, typed / dynamic). Bad modules is not inherent to JS but it __is__ a problem currently. Compare it to Maven Central for example: scandals like the one happened with kik is simply impossible. What I see is that there are a lot of libraries in JS which are made obsolete within a few weeks when something new and shiny comes out but there is no depth to it. For example I had to develop a topological sorting algorithm for a frontend project and I did not want to implement my own Graph library so I picked one which had the most Stars. Needless to say that the asymptotic complexities of its operations were not documented and in the end it turned out, that an operation which was supposed to have an O(1) complexity had O(n) and the whole application blew up. The point is that most libraries are sloppy and you end up reimplementing something when all your options fail. I'm used to the Collections framework in java which is well documented and performs admirably. Another problem is that javascript carries a lot of baggage which is a result of the poor design of the language itself and you end up using a lot of transpilers which extremely slows down the compile process. An application reload for example in Clojure (if you use Mount) takes less than a second.