4 ms·

> because it is not a pile of trash For instance, see the `Set` implementation here <https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_O

by slig 8y ago

> because it is not a pile of trash For instance, see the `Set` implementation here <https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/Set> https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Refe... and note that it doesn't even has `union` and `intersection` in the standard library. You have to copy/paste some code and place somewhere to have a minimum usable `Set` implementation. Pretty much a "pile of trash" in my opinion.

jhall1468 8y ago
This thread is getting weird. Now we're arguing an entire language is trash because the Set type doesn't have native methods you want? Really?
- slig 8y ago
  It's just a tiny example of how silly this whole thing is. What's the point of having a committee to draft and design an language that can't even be bothered to have a working Set implementation? It simply doesn't make sense.
  - jhall1468 8y ago
    It's a pointless example that's trivial to fix. There are actual problems with Javascript. The examples you and many other detractors mention expose the actual problem: You have no idea how to use the language because you don't use it. Instead you whine about some trivial things (At a method to the Set type... it would take minutes), or things you don't understand (prototypal inheritance).
    - slig 8y ago
      It's not about adding a method or two, I showed one symptom of a much larger problem. Of course one can add a method, but then why bother with the default crippled implementation in the first place? I'd rather have nothing and go find a third party library than having a half-assed one that's almost useless. > You have no idea how to use the language because you don't use it. I do use it daily for more than 15 years.
always_good 8y ago
That's such a weak example that it reads like a parody of the people who call Javascript a pile of trash. You're basically praising it with such faint condemnation. And by your own metric, I can't imagine how bad you think Golang is.

by slig 8y ago

jhall1468 8y ago

This thread is getting weird. Now we're arguing an entire language is trash because the Set type doesn't have native methods you want? Really?

slig 8y ago
It's just a tiny example of how silly this whole thing is. What's the point of having a committee to draft and design an language that can't even be bothered to have a working Set implementation? It simply doesn't make sense.
- jhall1468 8y ago
  It's a pointless example that's trivial to fix. There are actual problems with Javascript. The examples you and many other detractors mention expose the actual problem: You have no idea how to use the language because you don't use it. Instead you whine about some trivial things (At a method to the Set type... it would take minutes), or things you don't understand (prototypal inheritance).
  - slig 8y ago
    It's not about adding a method or two, I showed one symptom of a much larger problem. Of course one can add a method, but then why bother with the default crippled implementation in the first place? I'd rather have nothing and go find a third party library than having a half-assed one that's almost useless. > You have no idea how to use the language because you don't use it. I do use it daily for more than 15 years.

always_good 8y ago

That's such a weak example that it reads like a parody of the people who call Javascript a pile of trash. You're basically praising it with such faint condemnation. And by your own metric, I can't imagine how bad you think Golang is.