4 ms·

Yea, modern JS... it's just a joke, no integers, still funny effects with []+[] and {}+{} and []+{} and {}+[]. Good luck with writing anything serious using suc

Yea, modern JS... it's just a joke, no integers, still funny effects with []+[] and {}+{} and []+{} and {}+[]. Good luck with writing anything serious using such a crap.

skrebbel 9y ago
Both ESLint and TypeScript solve all that. In all honesty, if you're not using tools like that I'm not sure you're doing "modern JS development". It's like complaining that modern C++ is a mess while refusing to use references and RAII.
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  In C++, proper tools are part of the language. In JS, they're part of ecosystem of third party components that's changing on a weekly basis. There's a difference.
  - skrebbel 9y ago
    ESLint was released in 2013. TypeScript in 2012. People keep complaining about this "weekly basis" stuff but really the pace has been pretty slow lately. If you want to use constexpr in C++ you're going to have to upgrade your compiler as well, right (and, if you're unlucky, "migrate your project files" and all that mess)?
  - saas_co_de 9y ago
    > In C++, proper tools are part of the language. You couldn't be more wrong. The toolset that you need to develop decent C/C++ programs is massive and took decades to develop.
matthewmacleod 9y ago
Modern ECMAScript is still stupid, yes. Weak typing is 100% a bad idea, and no new language would take this approach. It has, however, obviously improved to the point where it's actually quite okay to use – a modern ES7 app exploiting features like class sugar, async/await, improved syntax etc. is perfectly serviceable, alongside a linter to prevent the stupid features from old versions biting you. But a whole bunch of 'serious' applications have obviously been written using JS, and it's a totally stupid view to think otherwise. Frankly the people who are the most concerned with 'my language is better than yours' litigation are by far the least productive developers I've encountered.

Yea, modern JS... it's just a joke, no integers, still funny effects with []+[] and {}+{} and []+{} and {}+[]. Good luck with writing anything serious using such a crap.

skrebbel 9y ago

Both ESLint and TypeScript solve all that. In all honesty, if you're not using tools like that I'm not sure you're doing "modern JS development". It's like complaining that modern C++ is a mess while refusing to use references and RAII.

TeMPOraL 9y ago
In C++, proper tools are part of the language. In JS, they're part of ecosystem of third party components that's changing on a weekly basis. There's a difference.
- skrebbel 9y ago
  ESLint was released in 2013. TypeScript in 2012. People keep complaining about this "weekly basis" stuff but really the pace has been pretty slow lately. If you want to use constexpr in C++ you're going to have to upgrade your compiler as well, right (and, if you're unlucky, "migrate your project files" and all that mess)?
- saas_co_de 9y ago
  > In C++, proper tools are part of the language. You couldn't be more wrong. The toolset that you need to develop decent C/C++ programs is massive and took decades to develop.

matthewmacleod 9y ago

Modern ECMAScript is still stupid, yes. Weak typing is 100% a bad idea, and no new language would take this approach. It has, however, obviously improved to the point where it's actually quite okay to use – a modern ES7 app exploiting features like class sugar, async/await, improved syntax etc. is perfectly serviceable, alongside a linter to prevent the stupid features from old versions biting you. But a whole bunch of 'serious' applications have obviously been written using JS, and it's a totally stupid view to think otherwise. Frankly the people who are the most concerned with 'my language is better than yours' litigation are by far the least productive developers I've encountered.