9 ms·

But why?

• shiado 8y ago
  For articles like this I often wonder this too. I don't know if it is developer Stockholm syndrome, a clever joke, or self-flagellation. It seems most articles on JS are aptly summarized as "here I am overcoming yet another critical defect of this poorly designed mess", which I suppose is laudable if you are forced to use JS all day.
  • sametmax 8y ago
    I always joke with my students that the most popular projects in js are designed to not write js. Tongue in cheek but still, webpack, babel, react, jquery, coffeescript, lowdash and typescript are all attempts to make the pain of using the js ecosystem go away by patching in things that has existed for decades elsewhere at the price of huge infrastructure and organisational cost. That such a terrible tech remains with a monopoly on the most popular and awesome platform in the world still astonishes me to this day. And humbles me in a way. But what infuriates me is that a lot of js devs will actually claim that it's great. The stockholm syndrom is strong indeed.
  • bmn__ 8y ago
    The take-away from the article is that a real syntax extension such as `a[1:3]` is not possible in the confines of ES6 because the language designers don't know why it's good to have that capability. You have to resort to external work-arounds like babel, sweet and others but they do not work in all circumstances and are all incompatible with each other.
• hasahmed 8y ago
  It probably started out and just wondering if he could