5 ms·

> Isn't it good that now there is an alternative to C? It's not exactly the first alternative, GJS (Gnome JavaScript) have existed for a long time and is also

by diggan 3y ago

> Isn't it good that now there is an alternative to C? It's not exactly the first alternative, GJS (Gnome JavaScript) have existed for a long time and is also a C-like language, so doesn't seem this would give too much value compared to just using GJS, unless you know Swift a lot better than JavaScript but the languages are similar enough that even that doesn't provide much value. AFAIK, GJS is an official Gnome project too, so there will be a vast difference in ecosystem support compared to Gnome apps written in Swift, which I'm not sure is so popular outside of Apple circles.

codedokode 3y ago
JavaScript is non static-typed and you'll spend time fixing bugs that can be prevented by static typing. Also, GJS is not well documented, as far as I remember.
- diggan 3y ago
  > JavaScript is non static-typed and you'll spend time fixing bugs that can be prevented by static typing. Use TypeScript if types are so important for you. Others find their own way of handling those issues without getting tripped up on it. Hardly a reason to completely switch between two languages in my mind, but of course it's alright if it's reason enough for you. Luckily there are acceptable workarounds for both groups of people :) > Also, GJS is not well documented, as far as I remember. What exactly is missing here? There are guides for the basics, API reference exists and there is a ton of apps you can look into for inspiration and/or figure out specific implementations. Is that really worse than what exists for writing Gnome apps with Swift? Seems like a really weak argument for using Swift instead of GJS.
  - codedokode 3y ago
    Swift is compiled, static-typed language and without tons of legacy like JS (for example, it has real objects, not dictionaries). Doesn't require an interpreter. It seems to be better than JS in every aspect.
    - diggan 3y ago
      One mans gold is another mans trash :) Static typing seems to be a neat addition for lots of people, that's great! Doesn't mean it's a silver bullet that improves development for everyone, and that's OK. I still don't see how a language (GJS) with an already existing ecosystem of writing Gnome apps, lots of examples, API references and more is worse for writing Gnome apps than Swift, that seems to have been launched just some days ago? Edit: I realize now that the "Adwaita for Swift" this blogpost is about isn't even an official Swift project, is the output of a student interested in Swift and Gnome.
      - Betelgeuse90 3y ago
        Honestly I used to think the same way about JS, because not having types allowed for very concise code sometimes. But the more I used Swift I realized how powerful type inference can be, and the difference in conciseness shrunk to basically nothing.
        diggan 3y ago
        Heh, yeah, everyone's journey is different :) I started out being a big fan of static typing but eventually found that I'm usually hit by different issues than "this was a int but I expected a string" that were more important to be solved, so I'm mostly using dynamic languages nowadays. But that's what so great with programming languages, there are so many that work so differently, so there is at least one language for everyone, no matter how different your brain works :) By the way, if you're a fan of "conciseness" you should give a lisp-type languages a try if you haven't before, will show you a completely different level of conciseness! Clojure is a great introduction to lisps. And if you still need validation of data somehow, clojure.spec et al works great and will introduce you to some cool new things you probably haven't come across before :)
        knallfrosch 3y ago
        Doesn't TypeScript – as mentioned above – solve all JavaScript type problems? I have, in 6 years, never encountered a single type error originating from a TS file.
Chiba-City 3y ago
[dead]

by diggan 3y ago

codedokode 3y ago

JavaScript is non static-typed and you'll spend time fixing bugs that can be prevented by static typing. Also, GJS is not well documented, as far as I remember.

diggan 3y ago
> JavaScript is non static-typed and you'll spend time fixing bugs that can be prevented by static typing. Use TypeScript if types are so important for you. Others find their own way of handling those issues without getting tripped up on it. Hardly a reason to completely switch between two languages in my mind, but of course it's alright if it's reason enough for you. Luckily there are acceptable workarounds for both groups of people :) > Also, GJS is not well documented, as far as I remember. What exactly is missing here? There are guides for the basics, API reference exists and there is a ton of apps you can look into for inspiration and/or figure out specific implementations. Is that really worse than what exists for writing Gnome apps with Swift? Seems like a really weak argument for using Swift instead of GJS.
- codedokode 3y ago
  Swift is compiled, static-typed language and without tons of legacy like JS (for example, it has real objects, not dictionaries). Doesn't require an interpreter. It seems to be better than JS in every aspect.
  - diggan 3y ago
    One mans gold is another mans trash :) Static typing seems to be a neat addition for lots of people, that's great! Doesn't mean it's a silver bullet that improves development for everyone, and that's OK. I still don't see how a language (GJS) with an already existing ecosystem of writing Gnome apps, lots of examples, API references and more is worse for writing Gnome apps than Swift, that seems to have been launched just some days ago? Edit: I realize now that the "Adwaita for Swift" this blogpost is about isn't even an official Swift project, is the output of a student interested in Swift and Gnome.
    - Betelgeuse90 3y ago
      Honestly I used to think the same way about JS, because not having types allowed for very concise code sometimes. But the more I used Swift I realized how powerful type inference can be, and the difference in conciseness shrunk to basically nothing.
      - diggan 3y ago
        Heh, yeah, everyone's journey is different :) I started out being a big fan of static typing but eventually found that I'm usually hit by different issues than "this was a int but I expected a string" that were more important to be solved, so I'm mostly using dynamic languages nowadays. But that's what so great with programming languages, there are so many that work so differently, so there is at least one language for everyone, no matter how different your brain works :) By the way, if you're a fan of "conciseness" you should give a lisp-type languages a try if you haven't before, will show you a completely different level of conciseness! Clojure is a great introduction to lisps. And if you still need validation of data somehow, clojure.spec et al works great and will introduce you to some cool new things you probably haven't come across before :)
      - knallfrosch 3y ago
        Doesn't TypeScript – as mentioned above – solve all JavaScript type problems? I have, in 6 years, never encountered a single type error originating from a TS file.

Chiba-City 3y ago

[dead]