3 ms·
I agree, its a mess with regard to expression - isn't that why this thread exists? The language is fun to write but eye-gouging to maintain. Of course you co
by smrtinsert 13y ago
I agree, its a mess with regard to expression - isn't that why this thread exists? The language is fun to write but eye-gouging to maintain. Of course you could apply strict conventions to make it maintainable, but at that point you might as well be in a statically typed language working at full speed in an ide.
After coding JS by hand for years (while doing other languages) I'm done with it. I'm ready to go preprocessor full time, either static language based but also interested in lisp variants, because if I have to go typeless, might as well do it in style.
I tried CoffeeScript for a while, but the philosophy is too similar to JS to keep my interest. It did reduce the code dramatically though, on avg about 70%.
- mwcampbell 13y agoI see your point, but JavaScript is much more popular than any of the other languages designed to compile to it. Thus, even if one works in a restricted and somewhat tedious subset of JS (such as the one encouraged by the Google Closure Compiler and used by the Closure Library), wouldn't it still be easier to find already-qualified developers than if one uses Haxe or ClojureScript or Dart?
- kybernetikos 13y ago> Of course you could apply strict conventions to make it maintainable, but at that point you might as well be in a statically typed language working at full speed in an ide. Not really. We do the strict conventions thing and have had a lot of success with it. Being able to run in a browser is a huge, huge advantage. If I had a nice statically typed language that gave me that advantage as well as javascript does, I'd probably switch to it, because by inclination I prefer the compiler to do more work for me, but there's no way I want to leave behind having my code work for anything with a browser and f5 to see my code in action.