5 ms·

> Why are their so many proposals trying to force alien syntax into JS from "functional" languages? I don't know, why are there so many proposals trying to tur

by Zababa 5y ago

> Why are their so many proposals trying to force alien syntax into JS from "functional" languages? I don't know, why are there so many proposals trying to turn JS into an C#/Java like language? The class syntax, the private fields, TS with its interfaces and abstract classes. The pipe will lead to more functions and function composition instead of fluent interfaces, which I think is more in line with JS.

zodiakzz 5y ago
You don't have to turn something into what it already is. Have you ever looked at the JS standard library String/Number/Math/Date? Heavily inspired by Java if not identical. > “I was under marketing orders to make it look like Java but not make it too big for its britches. It’s just this sort of silly little brother language, right? The sidekick to Java.” - Brendan Eich[1] 1: https://thenewstack.io/brendan-eich-on-creating-javascript-in-10-days-and-what-hed-do-differently-today/ https://thenewstack.io/brendan-eich-on-creating-javascript-i...
- Zababa 5y ago
  Sure, but JS code usually looks nothing like Java. People mostly write functions and data structures, just like in C. You don't start your JS code by writing objects.
handrous 5y ago
> I don't know, why are there so many proposals trying to turn JS into an C#/Java like language? The class syntax, the private fields, TS with its interfaces and abstract classes. Javascript's very OO, deep down in its bones. Its functions are even objects. It was just cursed with an OO model (prototypal) the distinguishing features of which pretty much all fall under "for the love of god, never actually rely on or leverage this functionality in any meaningful way" as far as how good an idea they are for code readability, and with god-awful scoping rules. "Class" and some other changes make the existing OO features usable in a way that won't have your successors cursing you for your "clever" use of prototypes, and saves tons of dumb boilerplate that never should have existed. It also makes it much clearer to the reader when you intend to treat something as an object, and when you're planning to treat it more like a struct.
- Zababa 5y ago
  I didn't mention OO in general and specifically Java and C#. JS is OO deep down, nobody is denying that, but it's not OO as in Java/C# where writing a function without a class is not idiomatic. > "Class" and some other changes make the existing OO features usable in a way that won't have your successors cursing you for your "clever" use of prototypes That's a strawman, you can write "clever" code with classes that will make your successors curse you just like you can write plain and readable code with prototypes.
  - handrous 5y ago
    > you can write plain and readable code with prototypes. It's really far from being ergonomic, unless you're basically just using JS objects as structs. Otherwise you're dancing around its pitfalls and limitations—visibly, in code, not just in your head—to express things that are very simple and clear in pretty much every other commonly-used OO-supporting language. > I didn't mention OO in general and specifically Java and C#. JS is OO deep down, nobody is denying that, but it's not OO as in Java/C# where writing a function without a class is not idiomatic. Sure, JS is multi-paradigm, like tons of other languages. Its early design, and early use in the wild, hints at "Imperative with quite a bit of OO and a sprinkling of functional for things like callbacks" being more-or-less its intended style, but of course that can (and has) changed over time, because the core language has half-decent support for all three styles. Incidentally, I've yet to see a TS codebase that ties itself in knots to avoid defining a function outside a class, to avoid treating functions as first-class when it makes sense to, or even to avoid a little imperative code outside of objects, here and there. They may exist, but I haven't seen it. I have seen a lot of code using HOFs to the point of absurdity, while passing big objects around to a bunch of functions and pretending that's "more pure" than putting those related functions on a class for that object. Or trying to shoehorn runtime-checked immutability into the language, at a performance cost for end users. Or writing their own weird, crippled form of objects in a language that already has them so they can keep things "pure" and let people keep avoiding the Class keyword for... whatever reasons they want to do that (React Hooks).
    - Zababa 5y ago
cageface 5y ago
I recently had to work with a JS codebase that looked like it was written by Java devs that were fooled by the surface similarities of TS and Java. Everything was a class, usually in a complex hierarchy with a lot of implementation inheritance. The code was deeply imperative and very hard to follow as well as being painfully verbose. It was the worst of both worlds.
- bcrosby95 5y ago
  Weird, complex hierarchies with implementation inheritance fell out of favor over 10 years ago in Java.
  - cageface 5y ago
    I guess not everyone got the memo.
  - hackingforfun 5y ago
    I haven’t used Java in a long time. What is in favor now?

by Zababa 5y ago

zodiakzz 5y ago

You don't have to turn something into what it already is. Have you ever looked at the JS standard library String/Number/Math/Date? Heavily inspired by Java if not identical. > “I was under marketing orders to make it look like Java but not make it too big for its britches. It’s just this sort of silly little brother language, right? The sidekick to Java.” - Brendan Eich[1] 1: https://thenewstack.io/brendan-eich-on-creating-javascript-in-10-days-and-what-hed-do-differently-today/ https://thenewstack.io/brendan-eich-on-creating-javascript-i...

Zababa 5y ago
Sure, but JS code usually looks nothing like Java. People mostly write functions and data structures, just like in C. You don't start your JS code by writing objects.

handrous 5y ago

> I don't know, why are there so many proposals trying to turn JS into an C#/Java like language? The class syntax, the private fields, TS with its interfaces and abstract classes. Javascript's very OO, deep down in its bones. Its functions are even objects. It was just cursed with an OO model (prototypal) the distinguishing features of which pretty much all fall under "for the love of god, never actually rely on or leverage this functionality in any meaningful way" as far as how good an idea they are for code readability, and with god-awful scoping rules. "Class" and some other changes make the existing OO features usable in a way that won't have your successors cursing you for your "clever" use of prototypes, and saves tons of dumb boilerplate that never should have existed. It also makes it much clearer to the reader when you intend to treat something as an object, and when you're planning to treat it more like a struct.

Zababa 5y ago
I didn't mention OO in general and specifically Java and C#. JS is OO deep down, nobody is denying that, but it's not OO as in Java/C# where writing a function without a class is not idiomatic. > "Class" and some other changes make the existing OO features usable in a way that won't have your successors cursing you for your "clever" use of prototypes That's a strawman, you can write "clever" code with classes that will make your successors curse you just like you can write plain and readable code with prototypes.
- handrous 5y ago
  > you can write plain and readable code with prototypes. It's really far from being ergonomic, unless you're basically just using JS objects as structs. Otherwise you're dancing around its pitfalls and limitations—visibly, in code, not just in your head—to express things that are very simple and clear in pretty much every other commonly-used OO-supporting language. > I didn't mention OO in general and specifically Java and C#. JS is OO deep down, nobody is denying that, but it's not OO as in Java/C# where writing a function without a class is not idiomatic. Sure, JS is multi-paradigm, like tons of other languages. Its early design, and early use in the wild, hints at "Imperative with quite a bit of OO and a sprinkling of functional for things like callbacks" being more-or-less its intended style, but of course that can (and has) changed over time, because the core language has half-decent support for all three styles. Incidentally, I've yet to see a TS codebase that ties itself in knots to avoid defining a function outside a class, to avoid treating functions as first-class when it makes sense to, or even to avoid a little imperative code outside of objects, here and there. They may exist, but I haven't seen it. I have seen a lot of code using HOFs to the point of absurdity, while passing big objects around to a bunch of functions and pretending that's "more pure" than putting those related functions on a class for that object. Or trying to shoehorn runtime-checked immutability into the language, at a performance cost for end users. Or writing their own weird, crippled form of objects in a language that already has them so they can keep things "pure" and let people keep avoiding the Class keyword for... whatever reasons they want to do that (React Hooks).
  - Zababa 5y ago

cageface 5y ago

I recently had to work with a JS codebase that looked like it was written by Java devs that were fooled by the surface similarities of TS and Java. Everything was a class, usually in a complex hierarchy with a lot of implementation inheritance. The code was deeply imperative and very hard to follow as well as being painfully verbose. It was the worst of both worlds.

bcrosby95 5y ago
Weird, complex hierarchies with implementation inheritance fell out of favor over 10 years ago in Java.
- cageface 5y ago
  I guess not everyone got the memo.
- hackingforfun 5y ago
  I haven’t used Java in a long time. What is in favor now?