3 ms·

"Javascript has such a minimal standard library" My hope is that this has been/will continue to change over time, is this a fare statement? Does anyone know if

"Javascript has such a minimal standard library" My hope is that this has been/will continue to change over time, is this a fare statement? Does anyone know if the various working groups (e.g., WHATWG, W3C, etc.) have the goal of making the JavaScript more robust? My vision is that the standard, built-in APIs would serve as a minimum viable platform that you can build simple to moderately complex applications in with only "minimal" external dependencies.

dmitriid 5y ago
You hope and you hope... and then they ship a Set without any useful built-in methods: https://exploringjs.com/impatient-js/ch_sets.html#missing-set-operations https://exploringjs.com/impatient-js/ch_sets.html#missing-se... Because ... variety of reasons, see tis comment thread: https://twitter.com/bakkoting/status/1488363368268251138 https://twitter.com/bakkoting/status/1488363368268251138
WorldMaker 5y ago
The working group most in charge of JS is ECMA's TC-39 (TC => Technical Committee) [0]. They've been taking a very deliberate, slow path to expanding the "standard" library because they take a very serious view of backwards compatibility on the web. Some proposals were shifted because of conflicts with ancient versions of things like MooTools still out in the wild, for instance. (This was the so-called "Smooshgate" incident [1].) This may speed up a bit if the Built-In Modules proposal [2] passes, which would add a deliberate `import` URL for standard modules which would give a cleaner expansion point for new standard libraries over adding more global variables or further expanding the base prototypes (Object.prototype, Array.prototype, etc) in ways that increasingly likely have backwards compatibility issues. TC-39 works all of their proposals in the open on Github [3] and it can be a fascinating process to watch if you are interested in the language's future direction. [0] https://tc39.es/ https://tc39.es/ [1] https://developers.google.com/web/updates/2018/03/smooshgate https://developers.google.com/web/updates/2018/03/smooshgate [2] https://github.com/tc39/proposal-built-in-modules https://github.com/tc39/proposal-built-in-modules [3] https://github.com/tc39/proposals https://github.com/tc39/proposals

dmitriid 5y ago

You hope and you hope... and then they ship a Set without any useful built-in methods: https://exploringjs.com/impatient-js/ch_sets.html#missing-set-operations https://exploringjs.com/impatient-js/ch_sets.html#missing-se... Because ... variety of reasons, see tis comment thread: https://twitter.com/bakkoting/status/1488363368268251138 https://twitter.com/bakkoting/status/1488363368268251138

WorldMaker 5y ago

The working group most in charge of JS is ECMA's TC-39 (TC => Technical Committee) [0]. They've been taking a very deliberate, slow path to expanding the "standard" library because they take a very serious view of backwards compatibility on the web. Some proposals were shifted because of conflicts with ancient versions of things like MooTools still out in the wild, for instance. (This was the so-called "Smooshgate" incident [1].) This may speed up a bit if the Built-In Modules proposal [2] passes, which would add a deliberate `import` URL for standard modules which would give a cleaner expansion point for new standard libraries over adding more global variables or further expanding the base prototypes (Object.prototype, Array.prototype, etc) in ways that increasingly likely have backwards compatibility issues. TC-39 works all of their proposals in the open on Github [3] and it can be a fascinating process to watch if you are interested in the language's future direction. [0] https://tc39.es/ https://tc39.es/ [1] https://developers.google.com/web/updates/2018/03/smooshgate https://developers.google.com/web/updates/2018/03/smooshgate [2] https://github.com/tc39/proposal-built-in-modules https://github.com/tc39/proposal-built-in-modules [3] https://github.com/tc39/proposals https://github.com/tc39/proposals