4 ms·

Javascript is a tiny language, but it pack a serious amount of gotcha. If you learn the javascript way, you just realise that the core language provide little

by gutnor 13y ago

Javascript is a tiny language, but it pack a serious amount of gotcha. If you learn the javascript way, you just realise that the core language provide little to no tooling around it. Like if you really want to fully utilise the prototype based inheritance, or the functional aspect of the language, you will basically have to write a whole set of utilities and extension on your own. Of course, javascript run in the browser, is small and super simple, so it packs a lot of fun. To me it oddly reminds me toying with assembly in the old DOS 16 bit days and I like it despite its flaws ( and well those flaws are being addressed in latest iterations ) But the flaws are real, and if you need to use it on a big project with a regular team, and not complete freedom of choosing the browser you support, javascript will make you cry more often than smile.

flywheel 13y ago
Considering the language was created in about a week, Javascript is nothing short of a computing miracle. It has enabled anyone with a web browser to write software that can run on billions of computers. And it is extremely easy to learn and use, with no boilerplate whatsoever. People who require the boilerplate to feel comfortable probably shouldn't use Javascript, and should have their heads examined.
nilliams 13y ago
> Like if you really want to fully utilise the prototype based inheritance, or the functional aspect of the language, you will basically have to write a whole set of utilities and extension on your own. Hmm, this is definitely something of an exaggeration. With old-school cross-browser JS you just need something like Backbone's `extend` implementation (jashkenas posted a shorter example a while back [1]) for inheritance and underscore.js [2] for your functional aspects (assuming that's the sort of thing you mean). If your criticism is that those things had to be written, then this was solved with ES5 which gives you `Object.create` [3] for your inheritance needs and `map()`, `filter()` et al for your functional stuff. I certainly don't see why you'd ever need 'to write a whole set of utilities and extensions of your own', that reads like pretty hand-wavey and unfair criticism. > if you need to use it on a big project with a regular team, and not complete freedom of choosing the browser you support, javascript will make you cry more often than smile. I think you are depicting a pretty broadly-shit scenario that I don't think you can say any other language ecosystem deals with well. Trying to support many different clients is a nightmare across e.g. mobile and the desktop using any other language/ecosystem too, with same 'regular team'. And I don't agree there's anything particular about JS that will make you 'cry more often that smile' in that scenario, but that's obviously subjective. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7244023 [2] http://underscorejs.org/ [3] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/Object/create

by gutnor 13y ago

flywheel 13y ago

Considering the language was created in about a week, Javascript is nothing short of a computing miracle. It has enabled anyone with a web browser to write software that can run on billions of computers. And it is extremely easy to learn and use, with no boilerplate whatsoever. People who require the boilerplate to feel comfortable probably shouldn't use Javascript, and should have their heads examined.

nilliams 13y ago

> Like if you really want to fully utilise the prototype based inheritance, or the functional aspect of the language, you will basically have to write a whole set of utilities and extension on your own. Hmm, this is definitely something of an exaggeration. With old-school cross-browser JS you just need something like Backbone's `extend` implementation (jashkenas posted a shorter example a while back [1]) for inheritance and underscore.js [2] for your functional aspects (assuming that's the sort of thing you mean). If your criticism is that those things had to be written, then this was solved with ES5 which gives you `Object.create` [3] for your inheritance needs and `map()`, `filter()` et al for your functional stuff. I certainly don't see why you'd ever need 'to write a whole set of utilities and extensions of your own', that reads like pretty hand-wavey and unfair criticism. > if you need to use it on a big project with a regular team, and not complete freedom of choosing the browser you support, javascript will make you cry more often than smile. I think you are depicting a pretty broadly-shit scenario that I don't think you can say any other language ecosystem deals with well. Trying to support many different clients is a nightmare across e.g. mobile and the desktop using any other language/ecosystem too, with same 'regular team'. And I don't agree there's anything particular about JS that will make you 'cry more often that smile' in that scenario, but that's obviously subjective. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7244023 [2] http://underscorejs.org/ [3] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/Object/create