2 ms·
Not sure about Atwood's Law. JavaScript has pride of place in browsers for now. But as WebAssembly gains traction, I look forward to avoiding the ungainly JS s
by smitty1e 5y ago
Not sure about Atwood's Law.
JavaScript has pride of place in browsers for now. But as WebAssembly gains traction, I look forward to avoiding the ungainly JS syntax in favor of pretty much anything else.
- 0x737368 5y agoWhat's wrong with JS syntax? Seems pretty modern and adequate for what it needs to do
- PedroBatista 5y agoMaybe what it needed to do, but not what people do with it now. There are entirely “enterprise” systems coded in that thing. It’s an human problem, original JS syntax was fine imho.
- 0x737368 5y agoPersonally, I think that the original JS syntax is absolutely horrendous and is in no small part responsible for the bad reputation JS is still shaking off. Modern JS in comparison is an absolute dream.
- elevenoh 5y agoI don't think js was ever all that bad, little ambitious however. But modern JS now checks off nearly all my boxes.
- smitty1e 5y agoI find in hard to know where things begin and where I am executing in a JS codebase/library. This may have more to do with the async nature thereof than the syntax specifics.
- NtrllyIntrstd 5y agoI still find it unfortunate that the guy who invented JS originally wanted to make a lisp but was told to make it more like the C family. Would've been interesting to have lisp run the web. A lot of things might be different today.