3 ms·

There are two kinds of languages: those people complain about and those nobody uses. There is a bit of bandwagon effect here, sure but this is more due to the

by sidlls 10y ago

There are two kinds of languages: those people complain about and those nobody uses. There is a bit of bandwagon effect here, sure but this is more due to the fact that JS is the only solution for the web and that the software development industry in contexts where JavaScript is seeing the most use is treated like an extended CS project instead of an engineering discipline. That the former is important is because of the ship-first-build-quality-maybe mentality that has a hold of the industry. The latter is in part a reflection of this.

westoque 10y ago
Not sure about that. With regards to Browsers, we are only given ONE language to work with, and that is JavaScript. So there is no bandwagon effect, I think everyone is just trying to work with the language they are given. But the fact that there are transpilers (Coffeescript, Typescript, Clojurescript, etc) means that people want to move away or improve JavaScript. Now that WebAssembly is being worked on is a big relief. We now have options on what language we think would be best for the job.
- sidlls 10y ago
  Certainly, but all of these things are nascent or not adopted with sufficient volume to assert a de facto standard. In that sense I think "JS is the 'only' thing available for the front-end" isn't unfair. As regards the backend, I don't think it's justifiable that anybody would actually choose JavaScript. There are far better, more stable options. The only reasons, as I see it, to choose JS for the backend are to cheap out on developer spend or to follow a fad. "Isomorphic development" falls in the one or both of these. Excellent, highly (Google) scalable products have been produced without that for two decades now. Asserting it is just, in my opinion, a way to mask one or both of the other reasons.

3 ms·

There are two kinds of languages: those people complain about and those nobody uses. There is a bit of bandwagon effect here, sure but this is more due to the

by sidlls 10y ago

westoque 10y ago
Not sure about that. With regards to Browsers, we are only given ONE language to work with, and that is JavaScript. So there is no bandwagon effect, I think everyone is just trying to work with the language they are given. But the fact that there are transpilers (Coffeescript, Typescript, Clojurescript, etc) means that people want to move away or improve JavaScript. Now that WebAssembly is being worked on is a big relief. We now have options on what language we think would be best for the job.
- sidlls 10y ago
  Certainly, but all of these things are nascent or not adopted with sufficient volume to assert a de facto standard. In that sense I think "JS is the 'only' thing available for the front-end" isn't unfair. As regards the backend, I don't think it's justifiable that anybody would actually choose JavaScript. There are far better, more stable options. The only reasons, as I see it, to choose JS for the backend are to cheap out on developer spend or to follow a fad. "Isomorphic development" falls in the one or both of these. Excellent, highly (Google) scalable products have been produced without that for two decades now. Asserting it is just, in my opinion, a way to mask one or both of the other reasons.