5 ms·
A viable replacement.
by jenscow 8y ago
A viable replacement.
- openloop 8y ago@-;—-
- sctb 8y agoThere will probably always be a snarky, jejune dismissal in every JavaScript thread, but commenters should think to themselves, “It doesn't have to be me.”
- yakshaving_jgt 8y agoI had that thought, but I don’t think it’s that unreasonable to hold JavaScript as a lost cause. Enough large projects are just using JavaScript as a sort of bytecode for the web anyway. I also find personally that recognising something as bad is the first step to making something better.
- sctb 8y agoThat's fine, but we're here to gratify our intellectual curiosity. There's nothing wrong with recognizing as such, it just needs to be done thoughtfully and informatively so we can have a discussion about it.
- Dylan16807 8y agoRecognizing something doesn't imply bringing it up constantly.
- jenscow 8y agoYes, I was being snarky - however, it is a valid concern. There needs to be a choice. (I write javascript almost every day)
- talltimtom 8y agoAn interesting thought for the future is if wasm will make other languages viable on the web. It would be interesting to see if anything else picks up steam as a serious competitor to JavaScript.
- maxxxxx 8y agoThe advantage of straight JS is that you don't have to compile it. Once you accept a compilation step you have quite a few pretty good alternatives like TypeScript.
- yarg 8y agoGiven that there's a WASM backend to LLVM, once WASM can be used without the need to interface with JS then any language with a WASM frontend (there'll probably be the need for some basic library support) will become a viable replacement. At the moment however (I believe that it's still the case), WASM still needs to interact with the DOM via JS, so there's a minimum amount of JS boilerplate required for bootstrapping.