3 ms·
Parts of it are overly verbose, but as a 1997 developer you're likely to understand that better. Have a play with a Lisp, or Python's functional aspects, or Has
by wizzwizz4 5y ago
Parts of it are overly verbose, but as a 1997 developer you're likely to understand that better. Have a play with a Lisp, or Python's functional aspects, or Haskell, then think about how you'd put those in JavaScript: chances are, you'll end up with a similar solution to what we have today.
- irrational 5y agoPerhaps that is the problem. Other developers came into JS, since that was where the jobs/money was, but wanted JS to be like the languages they left behind. Instead of adding onto JS in a “JS”-way, they pushed to change it to more closely mimic their previous languages. Now JS feels to me like this strange thing is JS at the core with these non-JS things bolted on around the edges. Syntactic sugar, like Class, that makes people coming from OOP languages feel like JS really is an OOP language like they are used to, while under the hood it is the same as always.