3 ms·
I'd put JavaScript in the "Examples" section as, like HTML, any change it gets is fully backwards compatible so you do not have to play catch-up with the latest
by Crinus 7y ago
I'd put JavaScript in the "Examples" section as, like HTML, any change it gets is fully backwards compatible so you do not have to play catch-up with the latest stuff just to keep your existing code working.
I do not know about Ruby nor about React-Preact-Vue-Angular to judge, though based on what i've heard the latter pile does sound made up of things that expect you do waste your time ensuring your software keeps working.
- jefftk 7y agoPlain JS, yes. The modern JS ecosystem, however, has an enormous amount of churn. The hot way to do things in JS world five years ago is hopelessly obsolete now.
- Crinus 7y agoWell, the list says "JavaScript" so i took it as plain JavaScript. If you care about avoiding churn you can stick with stuff that have proven to remain backwards compatible and plain JavaScript fits the bill.
- vkou 7y agoIt fits the bill for compatibility, but building anything useful in plain JavaScript is a jaunt through all seven layers of hell.