3 ms·
> I'm telling you that Java and Java programmers need them, Yes, I know, you repeated it often enough. And I keep not sharing that opinion of yours. > Why do
by usrbinbash 3y ago
> I'm telling you that Java and Java programmers need them,
Yes, I know, you repeated it often enough. And I keep not sharing that opinion of yours.
> Why do you think there are so many translation layer efforts for JavaScript?
That's a really good question, given how little value many of these add depending on the context they are used in, and how many hoops some of them make developers jump through to do things that would be plain simple using less sophisticated libraries instead of frameworks, or go with plain JS in the first place.
Luckily, I answered that question several times in this thread already, so I don't need to repeat myself :-)
> I am going to go out on a limb and claim that all of you that downvote me have completely missed this point.
Or, and hear me out on this: Maybe the people downvoting completely understand your points, and simply...disagree?
> This is not what people are doing.
Yes, this is what people are doing, which is exactly why things like lightweight JS frameworks and uncluttered languages that come batteries included like Go are being so successful.
- hurril 3y agoI would love for you to disagree, but for that to happen, you have to address the points of my arguments, which none of you have. The things you in particular mention goes towards my point, not against it. We are probably mostly in agreement when it comes to those. I know that: - it is easy to make a tiny framework - you can do that with both Java and JavaScript - that the translation layers really don't add much effectively - that you can program both languages without any library even I know all this. If you think that you have to tell me this or that I am wrong because of this, then you have missed the train. You can substitute Java and JavaScript there for ARM assembler. Do you get that? But if you as the proverbial CTO were to suggest going with assembler, people would (drum roll) use my arguments against you. Assembler needs a lot of Something Else to go on top of it and with it to make it generally useful. This is not to say that there's anything wrong with it in and of itself. But if you want to address cross-cutting concerns in a project, you are shit out of luck. You would invent a... drum roll... high level programming language to go with it. You would also likely want to have some sort of state management to go with that. And error handling, configuration management, various abstractions such that those become ergonomic to use. Please tell me you get the point now, because so far... you really haven't. I understand your points, but they are not directed at my point and we do not necessarily disagree about anything.