5 ms·

> something else that offers native bindings to other languages will eventually... No it won't. This is our one chance to kill javascript; if we don't do it n

> something else that offers native bindings to other languages will eventually... No it won't. This is our one chance to kill javascript; if we don't do it now, it'll be entrenched forever, and best we'll ever get is 'compiles-to-js' languages like clojurescript and typescript. Let's be realistic; who has the man power, community good will and business savvy to push an entirely new language across all platforms, mobile and desktop? Microsoft? Come on. Apple? Google? Google tried with dart and failed. Who else, seriously, is going to step up? We can day dream about the magical 'no js' world, but it's never going to happen if web assembly doesn't work. Currently we're seeing the reverse, js stretched off the browser, onto the server, into mobiles, onto iot devices. You've got to layout some pretty damn fine arguments about why that trend is going to suddenly reverse. Web assembly is pretty much our last best chance to flip javascript off and have something better...but it might already be too late for that to work. :/

ncantelmo 10y ago
I don't quite agree with the all-or-nothing assessment, but your passion is exactly why this will happen. Too many of the silent developer masses (probably mostly back-end engineers) have and continue to feel this way about being stuck with JS. The genie's out of the bottle, it's not going back in.
wybiral 10y ago
> This is our one chance to kill javascript; if we don't do it now, it'll be entrenched forever, and best we'll ever get is 'compiles-to-js' languages like clojurescript and typescript. Do people really hate JavaScript that much? I've grown fond of it in recent years, especially after ES6.
- bluejekyll 10y ago
  Yes. People really hate JavaScript that much. ES6 brought some sanity to the language, but I continue to be firmly in the camp of continuing to hate and despise its existence.
  - wybiral 10y ago
    Weird. I remember hating it ages ago. So much so that I was developing a Python->JavaScript transpiler (before all the cool kids were writing transpilers!) and blogging about how bad it was [1]. Granted, that was back in 2008 and most of my complaints have been addressed now almost a decade later (except for destructors, it still doesn't have those, but I also don't need them anymore). These days I move between JavaScript, Python, Go, and C seamlessly and I can honestly say that I don't hate any of them as much as clients, managers, and 3rd party code. [1] http://davywybiral.blogspot.com/2008/01/javascript-bad.html http://davywybiral.blogspot.com/2008/01/javascript-bad.html
    - bluejekyll 10y ago
      People have definitely had and continue to have successful careers in, and many actually enjoy, JS. I would never debate that. I think language choice for many people is a personal decision. There are some that I will hold my nose and use; not even complain too much. There are others that the minute there is an alternative to, I would use that instead. JS is in the latter camp for me. If it helps, my current favorite language is Rust... they may be syntactically similar, but I just can't stand the semantics, or lack there of, of JS.
  - irrational 10y ago
    This could be said for any language. Yes. People really hate C that much. C++ brought some sanity to the language, but I continue to be firmly in the camp of continuing to hate and despise its existence.
    - algesten 10y ago
      It's a bit different. For system level programming you have a choice to get around C/C++. For browser programming, or full stack in a single language, you have less choice, and none if you reject transpiling.
      - bluejekyll 10y ago
- zaphar 10y ago
  I really do hate javascript that much. It was somewhat acceptable when it was confined to the browser for simple scripting. But the more complicated the application and the more it moves out of the browser the more it's flaws get magnified.
- bobwaycott 10y ago
  Absolutely
- petre 10y ago
  I don't hate JS but would rather write my web codebase in something else, something that has a standard lib for instance. ES6 is also a transpile to JS language on the browser. The main problem is that we are stuck with ancient JS on the browser and WASM could fix that. Wouldn't you rather conpile ES6 to WASM instead of JS?
  - ZenPsycho 10y ago
    browsers that support WASM will support ES6 natively. compiling ES6 to WASM would not be a good idea, since you would have to send a garbage collector and full dynamic language runtime down the pipe instead of just using the one in the browser. wouldn't you rather just run ES6 right in the browser instead of compiling it first at all?
    - petre 10y ago
      If all major browsers support 100% of the spec and every implementation is bug to bug compatible with the others, yes, I would rather run ES6 directly in the browser. The problem is fragmentation and not supporting the whole spec -- some functions working in Firefox and Chrome and not implemented in IE/Edge or Safari.
      - Klathmon 10y ago
        Has any runtime anywhere had 100% compatibility with anything ever?
- pjmlp 10y ago
  Not everyone can use ES6 or transpilers. For example, on the type of projects I work on, all tooling is certified by customers IT and anything extra requires change request, that might get approved, or not.
- themihai 10y ago
  The lack of choice has to be hated. Some hate JS just for that.
- tonyedgecombe 10y ago
  I don't hate it, I just don't find it as productive as the server side language I use.
jfoutz 10y ago
Wild guess? Oracle with Java.
- shadowmint 10y ago
  :troll: well played.
  - jfoutz 10y ago
    Not the intention, but I see that interpretation. It's not hard to imagine oracle making a netbeans plugin for free and an expensive enterprise version that's faster. Selling point is leveraging existing back end skills.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- rogersach 10y ago
  Java already compiles to JS via Kotlin.
  - jfoutz 10y ago
    And gwt
- bluejekyll 10y ago
  Java failed to be what JavaScript became for a number of reasons, but I think the primary was the fact that it never integrated with HTML as cleanly as JS. It could have been JS, but it was strangled to death by Sun (on the client).
  - mort96 10y ago
    Java also has the problem of long startup times while the JIT is doing its thing. Javascript has always just started executing right away. Waiting a minute or two for a Java loading bar wasn't fun.
kartickv 10y ago
Is TypeScript as annoying a language to code in as Javascript? Or is it comparable to other modern languages like Swift and Go? If it is, I'd say that pain of dealing with Javascript (for developer productivity and happiness) is already taken care of.
- bluejekyll 10y ago
  But webassembly will allow for typescript or you language of choice, c/c++ and rust first, and as the OP suggests others too.
  - kartickv 10y ago
    The question was whether the concern of JS being frustrating is already solved by TypeScript, in which case WebAssembly is less important than it would be otherwise. (Which isn't to say that there aren't other questions like efficiency and already-existing codebases written in other languages.)
- Clubber 10y ago
  Typescript is a type safe language that "compiles" into javascript. The Microsoft implementation compiles on save, so you work in your file.ts and a program running somewhere fires when the file is saved and converts it to file.js which you would distribute. I haven't used it yet, but the demo from Anders looked good. It's an attempt to fix the "loosey goosey" nature of javascript. I would be great if browsers supported it as a built in language. https://channel9.msdn.com/posts/Anders-Hejlsberg-Introducing-TypeScript https://channel9.msdn.com/posts/Anders-Hejlsberg-Introducing... If you watch the video, you'll notice the argument notation is name: type rather than type name. I think Anders is reminiscing about his Delphi days.
  - TAForObvReasons 10y ago
    > If you watch the video, you'll notice the argument notation is name: type rather than type name. I think Anders is reminiscing about his Delphi days. ActionScript and the proposed ECMAScript 4 also use the name:type notation, so there is definitely some prior art in the web sphere
Bombthecat 10y ago
Jup, I think pretty much the same. JavaScript is freaking everywhere. Your DMS? Chances are it understands JavaScript. Your scanning software? Understands JavaScript. Your security gateway? JavaScript. You API management software? Also JavaScript. And a ton more. JavaScript is here to stay.

ncantelmo 10y ago

I don't quite agree with the all-or-nothing assessment, but your passion is exactly why this will happen. Too many of the silent developer masses (probably mostly back-end engineers) have and continue to feel this way about being stuck with JS. The genie's out of the bottle, it's not going back in.

wybiral 10y ago

> This is our one chance to kill javascript; if we don't do it now, it'll be entrenched forever, and best we'll ever get is 'compiles-to-js' languages like clojurescript and typescript. Do people really hate JavaScript that much? I've grown fond of it in recent years, especially after ES6.

bluejekyll 10y ago
Yes. People really hate JavaScript that much. ES6 brought some sanity to the language, but I continue to be firmly in the camp of continuing to hate and despise its existence.
- wybiral 10y ago
  Weird. I remember hating it ages ago. So much so that I was developing a Python->JavaScript transpiler (before all the cool kids were writing transpilers!) and blogging about how bad it was [1]. Granted, that was back in 2008 and most of my complaints have been addressed now almost a decade later (except for destructors, it still doesn't have those, but I also don't need them anymore). These days I move between JavaScript, Python, Go, and C seamlessly and I can honestly say that I don't hate any of them as much as clients, managers, and 3rd party code. [1] http://davywybiral.blogspot.com/2008/01/javascript-bad.html http://davywybiral.blogspot.com/2008/01/javascript-bad.html
  - bluejekyll 10y ago
    People have definitely had and continue to have successful careers in, and many actually enjoy, JS. I would never debate that. I think language choice for many people is a personal decision. There are some that I will hold my nose and use; not even complain too much. There are others that the minute there is an alternative to, I would use that instead. JS is in the latter camp for me. If it helps, my current favorite language is Rust... they may be syntactically similar, but I just can't stand the semantics, or lack there of, of JS.
- irrational 10y ago
  This could be said for any language. Yes. People really hate C that much. C++ brought some sanity to the language, but I continue to be firmly in the camp of continuing to hate and despise its existence.
  - algesten 10y ago
    It's a bit different. For system level programming you have a choice to get around C/C++. For browser programming, or full stack in a single language, you have less choice, and none if you reject transpiling.
    - bluejekyll 10y ago
zaphar 10y ago
I really do hate javascript that much. It was somewhat acceptable when it was confined to the browser for simple scripting. But the more complicated the application and the more it moves out of the browser the more it's flaws get magnified.
bobwaycott 10y ago
Absolutely
petre 10y ago
I don't hate JS but would rather write my web codebase in something else, something that has a standard lib for instance. ES6 is also a transpile to JS language on the browser. The main problem is that we are stuck with ancient JS on the browser and WASM could fix that. Wouldn't you rather conpile ES6 to WASM instead of JS?
- ZenPsycho 10y ago
  browsers that support WASM will support ES6 natively. compiling ES6 to WASM would not be a good idea, since you would have to send a garbage collector and full dynamic language runtime down the pipe instead of just using the one in the browser. wouldn't you rather just run ES6 right in the browser instead of compiling it first at all?
  - petre 10y ago
    If all major browsers support 100% of the spec and every implementation is bug to bug compatible with the others, yes, I would rather run ES6 directly in the browser. The problem is fragmentation and not supporting the whole spec -- some functions working in Firefox and Chrome and not implemented in IE/Edge or Safari.
    - Klathmon 10y ago
      Has any runtime anywhere had 100% compatibility with anything ever?
pjmlp 10y ago
Not everyone can use ES6 or transpilers. For example, on the type of projects I work on, all tooling is certified by customers IT and anything extra requires change request, that might get approved, or not.
themihai 10y ago
The lack of choice has to be hated. Some hate JS just for that.
tonyedgecombe 10y ago
I don't hate it, I just don't find it as productive as the server side language I use.

jfoutz 10y ago

Wild guess? Oracle with Java.

shadowmint 10y ago
:troll: well played.
- jfoutz 10y ago
  Not the intention, but I see that interpretation. It's not hard to imagine oracle making a netbeans plugin for free and an expensive enterprise version that's faster. Selling point is leveraging existing back end skills.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
rogersach 10y ago
Java already compiles to JS via Kotlin.
- jfoutz 10y ago
  And gwt
bluejekyll 10y ago
Java failed to be what JavaScript became for a number of reasons, but I think the primary was the fact that it never integrated with HTML as cleanly as JS. It could have been JS, but it was strangled to death by Sun (on the client).
- mort96 10y ago
  Java also has the problem of long startup times while the JIT is doing its thing. Javascript has always just started executing right away. Waiting a minute or two for a Java loading bar wasn't fun.

kartickv 10y ago

Is TypeScript as annoying a language to code in as Javascript? Or is it comparable to other modern languages like Swift and Go? If it is, I'd say that pain of dealing with Javascript (for developer productivity and happiness) is already taken care of.

bluejekyll 10y ago
But webassembly will allow for typescript or you language of choice, c/c++ and rust first, and as the OP suggests others too.
- kartickv 10y ago
  The question was whether the concern of JS being frustrating is already solved by TypeScript, in which case WebAssembly is less important than it would be otherwise. (Which isn't to say that there aren't other questions like efficiency and already-existing codebases written in other languages.)
Clubber 10y ago
Typescript is a type safe language that "compiles" into javascript. The Microsoft implementation compiles on save, so you work in your file.ts and a program running somewhere fires when the file is saved and converts it to file.js which you would distribute. I haven't used it yet, but the demo from Anders looked good. It's an attempt to fix the "loosey goosey" nature of javascript. I would be great if browsers supported it as a built in language. https://channel9.msdn.com/posts/Anders-Hejlsberg-Introducing-TypeScript https://channel9.msdn.com/posts/Anders-Hejlsberg-Introducing... If you watch the video, you'll notice the argument notation is name: type rather than type name. I think Anders is reminiscing about his Delphi days.
- TAForObvReasons 10y ago
  > If you watch the video, you'll notice the argument notation is name: type rather than type name. I think Anders is reminiscing about his Delphi days. ActionScript and the proposed ECMAScript 4 also use the name:type notation, so there is definitely some prior art in the web sphere

Bombthecat 10y ago

Jup, I think pretty much the same. JavaScript is freaking everywhere. Your DMS? Chances are it understands JavaScript. Your scanning software? Understands JavaScript. Your security gateway? JavaScript. You API management software? Also JavaScript. And a ton more. JavaScript is here to stay.