3 ms·

>They're a symptom you haven't yet become a JS dev. I agree 100%. If you're not infected you don't get it. Just like a healthy person may not understand the ba

>They're a symptom you haven't yet become a JS dev. I agree 100%. If you're not infected you don't get it. Just like a healthy person may not understand the babbling of a delirious patient. >I've been around the block. I vividly remember what this shit was like in 2008. All the way back to 2008? Quite the block. >JS works now. JS doesn't 'work'. The language is still a mess. But the platform is beautiful. The runtime and compiler and the JIT are great. In the same way that NAT gave a ipv4 a lease on life, transpilation is what makes JS development tolerable.

pluma 9y ago
When new features and built-ins are added to the language, HN complains about JS becoming bloated with feature creep. When built-ins remain missing from the language, HN complains about JS being useless and "inverse NIH". > All the way back to 2008? Quite the block. I've used JavaScript in the 90s. Compared to today, 2008 was firmly in the stone ages.
- macspoofing 9y ago
  >hen new features and built-ins are added to the language, HN complains about JS becoming bloated with feature creep. No. Just no. There is a difference between 'bloat' and a sane syntax. >I've used JavaScript in the 90s. Compared to today, 2008 was firmly in the stone ages. I agree. It's not saying much but I agree. In the 90s JavaScript was useless.
  - welly 9y ago
    > I agree. It's not saying much but I agree. In the 90s JavaScript was useless. And why I pretty much ignored JavaScript for the first 8-10 years of my career, now with much regret. I'm catching up though. The benefit of hindsight...
    - macspoofing 9y ago
      The reality was that before Microsoft unilaterally added the XMLHttpRequest object in the late 90s, there was not much you could do with JavaScript even if you wanted to do something. Couple that with the fact that js engines were slow, front-end (DOM) APIs were severely limited, and most people connected to the 'net' through telephone landlines on slow PCs (by modern standards) meant that it made far more sense to do purely server-side page rendering.

pluma 9y ago

When new features and built-ins are added to the language, HN complains about JS becoming bloated with feature creep. When built-ins remain missing from the language, HN complains about JS being useless and "inverse NIH". > All the way back to 2008? Quite the block. I've used JavaScript in the 90s. Compared to today, 2008 was firmly in the stone ages.

macspoofing 9y ago
>hen new features and built-ins are added to the language, HN complains about JS becoming bloated with feature creep. No. Just no. There is a difference between 'bloat' and a sane syntax. >I've used JavaScript in the 90s. Compared to today, 2008 was firmly in the stone ages. I agree. It's not saying much but I agree. In the 90s JavaScript was useless.
- welly 9y ago
  > I agree. It's not saying much but I agree. In the 90s JavaScript was useless. And why I pretty much ignored JavaScript for the first 8-10 years of my career, now with much regret. I'm catching up though. The benefit of hindsight...
  - macspoofing 9y ago
    The reality was that before Microsoft unilaterally added the XMLHttpRequest object in the late 90s, there was not much you could do with JavaScript even if you wanted to do something. Couple that with the fact that js engines were slow, front-end (DOM) APIs were severely limited, and most people connected to the 'net' through telephone landlines on slow PCs (by modern standards) meant that it made far more sense to do purely server-side page rendering.