3 ms·
> Because now there's one way instead of everyone bringing their own In theory. In reality there's everyone bringing their own plus one more. I think the appe
by smokeyj 9y ago
> Because now there's one way instead of everyone bringing their own
In theory. In reality there's everyone bringing their own plus one more.
I think the appeal of JS is that it's a universal runtime, not anything about the language itself. I really wish syntactic changes would be left to transpilation.. because that's what every JS developer is doing anyways.
- always_good 9y agoI don't find there to be a difference. Javascript has new features. That you have to compile at all is because of legacy targets. That browsers are adopting these new features just means that you'll need to eventually polyfill fewer of those features and reduce bundle size. But it's still Javascript that's changing. So I'm not sure what you mean by "left to transpilation" which seems to indicate that you're suggesting that something like Babel would have its own Babelscript. But most changes in Javascript I think are just about unanimous improvements like Promises and async/await and const/let and for/of and destructuring. We just like to circlejerk over class vs prototypes as if most people actually care. We can't help it because it's our sport. I regularly see posts on HN where someone is clearly bemoaning Javascript-as-they-used-it-five-or-more-years-ago which muddies the water when trying to have these discussions on HN. Like the anachronisms of people complaining about callback hell.