3 ms·
> design a language which would simply be "better JavaScript" - clean, modern and elegant yet have no fundamental differences JS' problem is that it is fundame
by cies 4y ago
> design a language which would simply be "better JavaScript" - clean, modern and elegant yet have no fundamental differences
JS' problem is that it is fundamentally not "clean, modern and elegant". It was designed in a couple of days. And all the greatness that's added to it nowadays is done in a much better design process than at it's inception, yet some choices made at it's inception can never be reversed.
I've written some Elm and think it is phenomenal at being a better JS; but it fundamentally very different. Rotten fundamentals are notoriously hard to fix; especially when a lot has been built on top and needs to keep running.
- qwerty456127 4y agoAFAIK Elm can not be considered "a better JavaScript" because it not only is fundamentally different, it also is not fully self-sufficient - in many cases you have to resort to JavaScript pieces while engineering an Elm app.
- cies 4y agoSame C programmers sometimes use assembly. The abstraction is leaky. I agree it's not a clean superset like TS is, but for the app I wrote I did not have to use any JS except in instantiating the app (3 lines iirc).