4 ms·

Do we really need yet another language for the web?

by SegFaultCDumped 8y ago

mariocesar 8y ago
Every alternative I know is based on Ecmascript, what other alternatives are?
- harlanji 8y ago
  ClojureScript. Based on EDN.
- ckocagil 8y ago
  Elm, ReasonML
- Vosporos 8y ago
  Dart ! (Lol)
- jxub 8y ago
  PureScript (Haskell) and BuckleScript (OCaml).
- dom96 8y ago
  Nim. I just finished developing a forum using the Karax SPA framework and it's been a great experience: https://github.com/nim-lang/nimforum https://github.com/nim-lang/nimforum.
matthewmacleod 8y ago
No, we don’t “need” it. But how do you think progress is made? People come up with new techniques and tools all the time, based on their previous experiences with a platform. Sometimes these projects wither and die. Sometimes they find niches where they’re particularly useful. Sometimes they hang around with a core of dedicated users. Sometimes the ideas they introduce go on to influence other languages. Those are all beneficial. I’m surprised to see this same complaint levelled so often.
- perfectnsphere 8y ago
  I'm not sure what you mean by progress.
sharpercoder 8y ago
We do need better languages, but we should get rid of languages that marginally improve. Take CoffeeScript: it pushed EcmaScript forward, but does not offer enough feature today to justify pouring enourmous man-hour resources into it. And this is true for many more languages (Flow, PureScript, LiveScript, IcedCoffeeScript, ...) which don't innovate on many aspects but just offer a slightly different - sometimes improved - syntax. I do recognize that many languages add value, but that must be offset to the cost of using these languages. Costs which are often quite high: Googleability, StackOverflowability, documentation, tooling, develop mindshare, library support, stability - these things don't come cheap and take years to mature. Furthermore, these "innovate slightly" languages in the webspace take away resources from improving the current state of the art in mainstream (EcmaScript, TypeScript, Dart, C#, Java, ...). For instance, instead of improving some JS tool now resources go into e.g. writing a language server for aforementioned language. A good example is Elm which does try to innovate on core concepts (builtin reactivity). That's a conceptual feature which can bring the state of the art of programming language design further. Last, I do not mean that we should not write any more new languages; but we should stop trying to get large-audience adoption for "innovate-slightly" languages. It's a waste of braincycles and actually hurts the ecosystem.
- tuukkah 8y ago
  PureScript is not JavaScript with a different syntax: it is a language with a full Hindley-Milner type system. "A strongly-typed functional programming language that compiles to JavaScript -- Build real-world applications using functional techniques and expressive types, such as: Algebraic data types and pattern matching; Row polymorphism and extensible records; Higher kinded types; Type classes with functional dependencies; Higher-rank polymorphism" http://www.purescript.org http://www.purescript.org
  - tathougies 8y ago
    Came here to say this. PureScript has innovated enough to influence both Haskell and JavaScript. It is certainly a solid language in its own right
- mraison 8y ago

Do we really need yet another language for the web?

mariocesar 8y ago

Every alternative I know is based on Ecmascript, what other alternatives are?

harlanji 8y ago
ClojureScript. Based on EDN.
ckocagil 8y ago
Elm, ReasonML
Vosporos 8y ago
Dart ! (Lol)
jxub 8y ago
PureScript (Haskell) and BuckleScript (OCaml).
dom96 8y ago
Nim. I just finished developing a forum using the Karax SPA framework and it's been a great experience: https://github.com/nim-lang/nimforum https://github.com/nim-lang/nimforum.

matthewmacleod 8y ago

No, we don’t “need” it. But how do you think progress is made? People come up with new techniques and tools all the time, based on their previous experiences with a platform. Sometimes these projects wither and die. Sometimes they find niches where they’re particularly useful. Sometimes they hang around with a core of dedicated users. Sometimes the ideas they introduce go on to influence other languages. Those are all beneficial. I’m surprised to see this same complaint levelled so often.

perfectnsphere 8y ago
I'm not sure what you mean by progress.

sharpercoder 8y ago

We do need better languages, but we should get rid of languages that marginally improve. Take CoffeeScript: it pushed EcmaScript forward, but does not offer enough feature today to justify pouring enourmous man-hour resources into it. And this is true for many more languages (Flow, PureScript, LiveScript, IcedCoffeeScript, ...) which don't innovate on many aspects but just offer a slightly different - sometimes improved - syntax. I do recognize that many languages add value, but that must be offset to the cost of using these languages. Costs which are often quite high: Googleability, StackOverflowability, documentation, tooling, develop mindshare, library support, stability - these things don't come cheap and take years to mature. Furthermore, these "innovate slightly" languages in the webspace take away resources from improving the current state of the art in mainstream (EcmaScript, TypeScript, Dart, C#, Java, ...). For instance, instead of improving some JS tool now resources go into e.g. writing a language server for aforementioned language. A good example is Elm which does try to innovate on core concepts (builtin reactivity). That's a conceptual feature which can bring the state of the art of programming language design further. Last, I do not mean that we should not write any more new languages; but we should stop trying to get large-audience adoption for "innovate-slightly" languages. It's a waste of braincycles and actually hurts the ecosystem.

tuukkah 8y ago
PureScript is not JavaScript with a different syntax: it is a language with a full Hindley-Milner type system. "A strongly-typed functional programming language that compiles to JavaScript -- Build real-world applications using functional techniques and expressive types, such as: Algebraic data types and pattern matching; Row polymorphism and extensible records; Higher kinded types; Type classes with functional dependencies; Higher-rank polymorphism" http://www.purescript.org http://www.purescript.org
- tathougies 8y ago
  Came here to say this. PureScript has innovated enough to influence both Haskell and JavaScript. It is certainly a solid language in its own right
mraison 8y ago