6 ms·

You said it. You're not an expert. You are comparing a prototype based language to oop languages. You're basically putting the wrong fuel in a car and blaming t

You said it. You're not an expert. You are comparing a prototype based language to oop languages. You're basically putting the wrong fuel in a car and blaming the car. You are lazy in my opinion because yes there are few resources that teach you how to use the language properly but plenty that compensate for those who want to make it familiar to back end devs. If you looked for good resources you will slowly discover that most JavaScript developers do not understand the language well because of the same assumptions you are making. It's a highly misunderstood language due to human stupidity.

eitland 9y ago
While it is certainly possible to understand JS it is - IMO - a waste of brain cycles that we have to live with. There's no doubth in me that even very good Javascript programmers can be significantly better in a better language. E.g. Typescript gives you literally all of JS - and a way to keep things tidy. Typescript which is a compile-to-js language in a weird way proves how lacking js is - while still buildiing on top of it.
- jugularkill 9y ago
  "very good Javascript programmers can be significantly better in a better language." This is not how it works. Take this idea that JavaScript is a "badly designed language" out of your head and understand that about 99% of JavaScript's behaviours are intentional. The majority of gotchas in JS are shown by people who don't understand type coercion, prototypes or who expect it to behave like x language. It is not just misunderstood by your average Joe JS dev, but also by many who claim to be pros and experts. JavaScript is a language that doesn't tell you how to do things, there are no constraints. This is why so many people suck at it. They want to use statically typed classical inheritance constraints on a language oriented around higher-order functions, coercion and literally everything being an object. If you are somebody who is intuitive enough to create your own restrictions on what to use and what not to use in JS from the POV of the language's architecture then you will love it. If you are convinced that there is already a holy grail structure to programming languages then you will always have problems with JS. TypeScript is miserable. I see people building libraries in TypeScript and it's sad because they will never know how much better their performance could be or how small their lib size could be because the can only think in OOP. OOP languages are already hugely problematic when it comes to complexities. So imagine how overly complex the JavaScript eco system is becoming due to a generation of developers who want it to be more like x OOP language it does not have the foundation to be like. There is no defacto solution for software engineering everything still sucks, and nobody remotely has it figured out.
  - eitland 9y ago
    > Take this idea that JavaScript is a "badly designed language" out of your head Respectfully, no. The impressive thing about it is it was written in 3 weeks. Edit: I also didn't say Javascript was a badly designed language, at least not in the post you replied to. The rest of it is like PHP (yes, I have programmed a fair bit in that as well). > and understand that about 99% of JavaScript's behaviours are intentional. So much worse ;-) There is one good defense for Javascript IMO and that is it was made in a very short time. Intentionally leaving in a heap of footguns like Javascripts type coercion isn't brilliant, it is either pragmatic, myopic or evil. I say pragmatic in this case. > The majority of gotchas in JS are shown by people who don't understand type coercion, prototypes or who expect it to behave like x language. The classic Perl defense I'd say: ~you don’t understand the beauty of it. > TypeScript is miserable. I see people building libraries in TypeScript and it's sad because they will never know how much better their performance could be or how small their lib size could be because the can only think in OOP. Well, every thing you can do in JS you can also do in TS. In a sense you can say this is our implementation of what you said above: "If you are somebody who is intuitive enough to create your own restrictions on what to use and what not to use in JS from the POV of the language's architecture then you will love it." And here you are right: Typescript is quite a lovely language:-) Also: By this logic we should be programming in assembly.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - jugularkill 9y ago
      > It was written in 3 weeks Actually 10 days, with 22 years of development, but that has nothing to do with how it fundamentally works. > The rest of it is like PHP Are you joking? Ok so, JavaScript is a prototype based language PHP is (now) an OOP language. They are not remotely the same with the exception of dynamic types and even that is nothing like PHP due to the nature of JS engines like V8. But because if the prototype system it can emulate classical OOP. JavaScript is also a higher-order language which mean it is a psuedo-functional programming language. PHP and JS could not be further apart. > The classic Perl defense I'd say: ~you don’t understand the beauty of it. It's not about beauty, I'm saying that most people who think the language is making mistakes or doing something wrong just don't understand how it works. They blame it for their lack of knowledge. > Well, every thing you can do in JS you can also do in TS. But that's not why people use TypeScript, they use it to do TypeScript styled things. > what you said above: ~ intuitive enough to create your own restrictions That's the problem, TypeScript comes with a bunch of constraints, that's its purpose. Yes you can choose to use them or not. You could also buy a new phone and throw it off a cliff, but that's not generally why people buy phones. > Also: By this logic we should be programming in assembly. Assembly serves a purpose well, so does JavaScript. I'm just saying rather than trash things why not learn them first properly.
- machiaweliczny 9y ago
  I programmed in more than 10 languages and I'm very productive with TypeScript and I doubt there's better language for interface development or I would be using it instead. What exactly do you propose? I will test it out.
  - eitland 9y ago
    My suggestion is that you continue with Typescript. I use Typescript as well.
naasking 9y ago
> It's a highly misunderstood language due to human stupidity. Or maybe it's a highly misunderstood language because it doesn't match human intuitions. That makes it a poor language, like the OP said.
- jugularkill 9y ago
  A programming language is not supposed to match human intuitions. We are trying to take things from the physical world an represent them in the digital world. A programming language should be modelled on physical life. But we still haven't figured this out yet. I don't think many people understand what a poor language is, you really need to understand the spec fully and experiment with every paradigm in production to claim that JS is a poor language. Can you genuinely say that you have?
  - naasking 9y ago
    > A programming language is not supposed to match human intuitions. I'd say that's a flat out false conjecture. Given a choice between two programming languages, one which better matches our intuitions and one which doesn't, the one which does will always yield programs with fewer bugs because we will simply be better able to express our solution to the problem being solved, and we will be better able to understand the program and so extend it. It's like saying that door knobs are not supposed to match human intuitions, they're just supposed to open doors in the best manner possible. Well guess what property opens doors in the best manner possible when humans are the ones opening doors? A door knob that's most intuitive and natural for the majority of humans to use. HCI and ergonomic factors are seriously underappreciated in computer science. > you really need to understand the spec fully and experiment with every paradigm in production to claim that JS is a poor language. Can you genuinely say that you have? I've used OO, FP, prototype-based, logic and constraint-based programming languages. Yep, I think I can say JS is not a good language. It's improved somewhat, but still not great. It's not Brainfuck-bad, but it's not particularly good either.
    - jugularkill 9y ago
      > one which better matches our intuitions > A door knob that's most intuitive and natural for the majority of humans to use. Ok so let me explain better: The UX = Human End-users POV (intuition) Programming syntax = Human Developers (intuition or whatevr) Tools to deliver (Browser API, CSS) = The domain/s The way in which we structure work = the things we are building = things that exist in real life. Websites are mis-leading because many pages appear alike people tend to believe that there's a lot of repetitive components but there really isn't in general. So inheritance is usually way over used despite the style of programming. I am not discussing how we use a door knob. I'm arguing about how we build the door knob of different variants in mass production. > It's not Brainfuck-bad Brainfuck is not a "bad" language, if it serves it's purpose well then it is good. I think Brainfuck is doing exactly what it intended to do. There are people who have been using JS for 20 years who think it is terrible. It's because they have never taken time out to learn the language properly. Most JS devs don't I'm not convinced that you have because you clearly wouldn't be saying x is a poor language. No language that is in high demand today is a poor language.

eitland 9y ago

While it is certainly possible to understand JS it is - IMO - a waste of brain cycles that we have to live with. There's no doubth in me that even very good Javascript programmers can be significantly better in a better language. E.g. Typescript gives you literally all of JS - and a way to keep things tidy. Typescript which is a compile-to-js language in a weird way proves how lacking js is - while still buildiing on top of it.

jugularkill 9y ago
"very good Javascript programmers can be significantly better in a better language." This is not how it works. Take this idea that JavaScript is a "badly designed language" out of your head and understand that about 99% of JavaScript's behaviours are intentional. The majority of gotchas in JS are shown by people who don't understand type coercion, prototypes or who expect it to behave like x language. It is not just misunderstood by your average Joe JS dev, but also by many who claim to be pros and experts. JavaScript is a language that doesn't tell you how to do things, there are no constraints. This is why so many people suck at it. They want to use statically typed classical inheritance constraints on a language oriented around higher-order functions, coercion and literally everything being an object. If you are somebody who is intuitive enough to create your own restrictions on what to use and what not to use in JS from the POV of the language's architecture then you will love it. If you are convinced that there is already a holy grail structure to programming languages then you will always have problems with JS. TypeScript is miserable. I see people building libraries in TypeScript and it's sad because they will never know how much better their performance could be or how small their lib size could be because the can only think in OOP. OOP languages are already hugely problematic when it comes to complexities. So imagine how overly complex the JavaScript eco system is becoming due to a generation of developers who want it to be more like x OOP language it does not have the foundation to be like. There is no defacto solution for software engineering everything still sucks, and nobody remotely has it figured out.
- eitland 9y ago
  > Take this idea that JavaScript is a "badly designed language" out of your head Respectfully, no. The impressive thing about it is it was written in 3 weeks. Edit: I also didn't say Javascript was a badly designed language, at least not in the post you replied to. The rest of it is like PHP (yes, I have programmed a fair bit in that as well). > and understand that about 99% of JavaScript's behaviours are intentional. So much worse ;-) There is one good defense for Javascript IMO and that is it was made in a very short time. Intentionally leaving in a heap of footguns like Javascripts type coercion isn't brilliant, it is either pragmatic, myopic or evil. I say pragmatic in this case. > The majority of gotchas in JS are shown by people who don't understand type coercion, prototypes or who expect it to behave like x language. The classic Perl defense I'd say: ~you don’t understand the beauty of it. > TypeScript is miserable. I see people building libraries in TypeScript and it's sad because they will never know how much better their performance could be or how small their lib size could be because the can only think in OOP. Well, every thing you can do in JS you can also do in TS. In a sense you can say this is our implementation of what you said above: "If you are somebody who is intuitive enough to create your own restrictions on what to use and what not to use in JS from the POV of the language's architecture then you will love it." And here you are right: Typescript is quite a lovely language:-) Also: By this logic we should be programming in assembly.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - jugularkill 9y ago
    > It was written in 3 weeks Actually 10 days, with 22 years of development, but that has nothing to do with how it fundamentally works. > The rest of it is like PHP Are you joking? Ok so, JavaScript is a prototype based language PHP is (now) an OOP language. They are not remotely the same with the exception of dynamic types and even that is nothing like PHP due to the nature of JS engines like V8. But because if the prototype system it can emulate classical OOP. JavaScript is also a higher-order language which mean it is a psuedo-functional programming language. PHP and JS could not be further apart. > The classic Perl defense I'd say: ~you don’t understand the beauty of it. It's not about beauty, I'm saying that most people who think the language is making mistakes or doing something wrong just don't understand how it works. They blame it for their lack of knowledge. > Well, every thing you can do in JS you can also do in TS. But that's not why people use TypeScript, they use it to do TypeScript styled things. > what you said above: ~ intuitive enough to create your own restrictions That's the problem, TypeScript comes with a bunch of constraints, that's its purpose. Yes you can choose to use them or not. You could also buy a new phone and throw it off a cliff, but that's not generally why people buy phones. > Also: By this logic we should be programming in assembly. Assembly serves a purpose well, so does JavaScript. I'm just saying rather than trash things why not learn them first properly.
machiaweliczny 9y ago
I programmed in more than 10 languages and I'm very productive with TypeScript and I doubt there's better language for interface development or I would be using it instead. What exactly do you propose? I will test it out.
- eitland 9y ago
  My suggestion is that you continue with Typescript. I use Typescript as well.

naasking 9y ago

> It's a highly misunderstood language due to human stupidity. Or maybe it's a highly misunderstood language because it doesn't match human intuitions. That makes it a poor language, like the OP said.

jugularkill 9y ago
A programming language is not supposed to match human intuitions. We are trying to take things from the physical world an represent them in the digital world. A programming language should be modelled on physical life. But we still haven't figured this out yet. I don't think many people understand what a poor language is, you really need to understand the spec fully and experiment with every paradigm in production to claim that JS is a poor language. Can you genuinely say that you have?
- naasking 9y ago
  > A programming language is not supposed to match human intuitions. I'd say that's a flat out false conjecture. Given a choice between two programming languages, one which better matches our intuitions and one which doesn't, the one which does will always yield programs with fewer bugs because we will simply be better able to express our solution to the problem being solved, and we will be better able to understand the program and so extend it. It's like saying that door knobs are not supposed to match human intuitions, they're just supposed to open doors in the best manner possible. Well guess what property opens doors in the best manner possible when humans are the ones opening doors? A door knob that's most intuitive and natural for the majority of humans to use. HCI and ergonomic factors are seriously underappreciated in computer science. > you really need to understand the spec fully and experiment with every paradigm in production to claim that JS is a poor language. Can you genuinely say that you have? I've used OO, FP, prototype-based, logic and constraint-based programming languages. Yep, I think I can say JS is not a good language. It's improved somewhat, but still not great. It's not Brainfuck-bad, but it's not particularly good either.
  - jugularkill 9y ago
    > one which better matches our intuitions > A door knob that's most intuitive and natural for the majority of humans to use. Ok so let me explain better: The UX = Human End-users POV (intuition) Programming syntax = Human Developers (intuition or whatevr) Tools to deliver (Browser API, CSS) = The domain/s The way in which we structure work = the things we are building = things that exist in real life. Websites are mis-leading because many pages appear alike people tend to believe that there's a lot of repetitive components but there really isn't in general. So inheritance is usually way over used despite the style of programming. I am not discussing how we use a door knob. I'm arguing about how we build the door knob of different variants in mass production. > It's not Brainfuck-bad Brainfuck is not a "bad" language, if it serves it's purpose well then it is good. I think Brainfuck is doing exactly what it intended to do. There are people who have been using JS for 20 years who think it is terrible. It's because they have never taken time out to learn the language properly. Most JS devs don't I'm not convinced that you have because you clearly wouldn't be saying x is a poor language. No language that is in high demand today is a poor language.