25 ms·

Honestly the very idea of a JavaScript compiler like that is destined for obsolescence per standardized features added to browsers. Folks should just develop t

Honestly the very idea of a JavaScript compiler like that is destined for obsolescence per standardized features added to browsers. Folks should just develop their own shims where necessary and TEST AGAINST VARIOUS BROWSERS. Sure no one likes doing that, but it’s important to follow the fast-pace ECMAScript adoption.

rhacker 5y ago
> TEST AGAINST VARIOUS BROWSERS I mean, how does that not just push all of this towards companies and open source solutions that provide access to old browsers and what not? I mean no matter what direction you push, it's going to be someone else's open source code that needs money.
- bjornjajeja 5y ago
  You’re right that was an off topic note. I guess what I’m getting at is that most current browsers support very nice JavaScript features anyway. And instead of adding yet another layer between our code and the browser—embrace the current generation of (at this point very robust) language features available. And if that’s not good enough use something like TypeScript!
  - nsonha 5y ago
    > most current browsers support very nice JavaScript features anyway Maybe that's true for users in the western world. However, if you are in the asian market, there are popular browsers you've nerver heard of (some localized fork of chromium that's way behind). That is not to mention the poorer populace of the world still uses whatever that runs on WinXP or something, if they have Internet at all. As software engineers it's not our job to use technology to dictate (control) how people access information, telling them to use newer browsers and newer hardware and what not, our job is to support as many people out there as we can.
    - bjornjajeja 5y ago
      Well put... However, the unfortunate thing about web technology is that websites no longer support NOSCRIPT. If we want true global compatibility, it’s HTML + CSS and ZERO JavaScript. That has immense privacy benefits too.
krainboltgreene 5y ago
babel is a transpiler, which is more than just a way to shim shim features in browsers.
- bjornjajeja 5y ago
  You might call it a tanspiler and technically it IS. But the Babel homepage calls it a compiler. In any case, for the plethora of down voters: Babel states: “Use next generation JavaScript, today” At some point next gen == current gen, and therefor given enough stability, Babel becomes obsolete. Folks, donate to Mozilla instead they actually move things forward not backward.
  - rat9988 5y ago
    This assumes that javascript has stopped evolving at some point.
    - bjornjajeja 5y ago
      Actually, it assumes only that evolution of new features slows down. Once things are _slow enough_ the value of an extra dependency is dramatically reduced.
- nsonha 5y ago
  God I hate this word, it's like in bad OOP where you classify things just for the sake of having more classes. This belongs to a class called compiler, just call it compiler.
  - krainboltgreene 5y ago
    It has a specific meaning that is distinct from compilier.

rhacker 5y ago

> TEST AGAINST VARIOUS BROWSERS I mean, how does that not just push all of this towards companies and open source solutions that provide access to old browsers and what not? I mean no matter what direction you push, it's going to be someone else's open source code that needs money.

bjornjajeja 5y ago
You’re right that was an off topic note. I guess what I’m getting at is that most current browsers support very nice JavaScript features anyway. And instead of adding yet another layer between our code and the browser—embrace the current generation of (at this point very robust) language features available. And if that’s not good enough use something like TypeScript!
- nsonha 5y ago
  > most current browsers support very nice JavaScript features anyway Maybe that's true for users in the western world. However, if you are in the asian market, there are popular browsers you've nerver heard of (some localized fork of chromium that's way behind). That is not to mention the poorer populace of the world still uses whatever that runs on WinXP or something, if they have Internet at all. As software engineers it's not our job to use technology to dictate (control) how people access information, telling them to use newer browsers and newer hardware and what not, our job is to support as many people out there as we can.
  - bjornjajeja 5y ago
    Well put... However, the unfortunate thing about web technology is that websites no longer support NOSCRIPT. If we want true global compatibility, it’s HTML + CSS and ZERO JavaScript. That has immense privacy benefits too.

krainboltgreene 5y ago

babel is a transpiler, which is more than just a way to shim shim features in browsers.

bjornjajeja 5y ago
You might call it a tanspiler and technically it IS. But the Babel homepage calls it a compiler. In any case, for the plethora of down voters: Babel states: “Use next generation JavaScript, today” At some point next gen == current gen, and therefor given enough stability, Babel becomes obsolete. Folks, donate to Mozilla instead they actually move things forward not backward.
- rat9988 5y ago
  This assumes that javascript has stopped evolving at some point.
  - bjornjajeja 5y ago
    Actually, it assumes only that evolution of new features slows down. Once things are _slow enough_ the value of an extra dependency is dramatically reduced.
nsonha 5y ago
God I hate this word, it's like in bad OOP where you classify things just for the sake of having more classes. This belongs to a class called compiler, just call it compiler.
- krainboltgreene 5y ago
  It has a specific meaning that is distinct from compilier.