4 ms·

Couldn't agree more with your last point, it's just that we've been able to do this with statically typed languages for years now. Javascript still reigns supr

Couldn't agree more with your last point, it's just that we've been able to do this with statically typed languages for years now. Javascript still reigns supreme, no argument there, but the contenders that are trying to replace it all have something in common: they add types to Javascript. All of them. I think the trend is pretty clear.

taeric 11y ago
Sadly, if there is a trend, it is that none of them have succeeded. So, if that is the path to success, it will only be after it was forced through more effort than really makes sense. And, correct me if I'm wrong, but Haskel and vanilla Java, along with many other common statically typed languages, can not hotswap. Well, to be fair, vanilla Java can, under limited conditions.
- zak_mc_kracken 11y ago
  The fact that none of them have succeeded is more due to inertia than anything else. Again, this doesn't take anything away from the fact that that statically typed languages are the future and even Javascript won't be dodging this evolution for much longer. Ruby and Python were the latest victims of this trend, Javascript will clearly be next, even if it might take years.
  - taeric 11y ago
    Isn't javascript younger than all of the poster static languages? Why didn't inertia help any of them beat it? (It is amusing that it was called JavaScript to capitalize the popularity of Java.) I mean, ultimately, I think I agree with you. But at the rate things are moving, I expect my children will still learn JavaScript. And probably C.
    - the_why_of_y 11y ago
      The reason why JavaScript has succeeded where many other languages, whether statically typed or not, have failed, is that it was bundled with a runtime platform - the web browser - that became ubiquitous. Millions of people want to write programs that runs in a web browser, and it's easiest to do that in JavaScript. JavaScript is a textbook example of "worse-is-better", and you are right, for compatibility reasons we are going to be stuck with it until long past its best-before date, just like C.
      - taeric 11y ago
        That was the point I meant when I said the the ultimate tooling a language needs is a runtime that is widely distributed.
- mikerichards 11y ago
  Not being able to hotswap when debugging is a productivity pain for me. I'm in the C# world, and edit-n-continue is severely limited. JRebel is very good with doing hotswap with Java, but it has its limitations too. Ideally, I'd like a programming environment to go into interpreted mode so that if a change is made and its horribly wrong, it just throws an exception.
obsurveyor 11y ago
You're ignoring all the people that aren't trying to replace Javascript because they're... using Javascript. It's has a lot of warts but with some mindfulness it's entirely usable. No one can argue that people aren't getting things done with it and being successful.
- Roboprog 11y ago
  Thank you. All of these BlahBlahScript wrappers don't change the fact that I still have to debug (and thus read, anyway) Javascript in the browser. Javascript isn't assembler, it's actually mostly OK to read - I kind of like it. I only recently discovered JSDoc, and it goes a long way towards documenting types when they matter, especially if your IDE/editor (e.g. - WebStorm) recognizes the annotations and displays them when you click on a symbol.

taeric 11y ago

Sadly, if there is a trend, it is that none of them have succeeded. So, if that is the path to success, it will only be after it was forced through more effort than really makes sense. And, correct me if I'm wrong, but Haskel and vanilla Java, along with many other common statically typed languages, can not hotswap. Well, to be fair, vanilla Java can, under limited conditions.

zak_mc_kracken 11y ago
The fact that none of them have succeeded is more due to inertia than anything else. Again, this doesn't take anything away from the fact that that statically typed languages are the future and even Javascript won't be dodging this evolution for much longer. Ruby and Python were the latest victims of this trend, Javascript will clearly be next, even if it might take years.
- taeric 11y ago
  Isn't javascript younger than all of the poster static languages? Why didn't inertia help any of them beat it? (It is amusing that it was called JavaScript to capitalize the popularity of Java.) I mean, ultimately, I think I agree with you. But at the rate things are moving, I expect my children will still learn JavaScript. And probably C.
  - the_why_of_y 11y ago
    The reason why JavaScript has succeeded where many other languages, whether statically typed or not, have failed, is that it was bundled with a runtime platform - the web browser - that became ubiquitous. Millions of people want to write programs that runs in a web browser, and it's easiest to do that in JavaScript. JavaScript is a textbook example of "worse-is-better", and you are right, for compatibility reasons we are going to be stuck with it until long past its best-before date, just like C.
    - taeric 11y ago
      That was the point I meant when I said the the ultimate tooling a language needs is a runtime that is widely distributed.
mikerichards 11y ago
Not being able to hotswap when debugging is a productivity pain for me. I'm in the C# world, and edit-n-continue is severely limited. JRebel is very good with doing hotswap with Java, but it has its limitations too. Ideally, I'd like a programming environment to go into interpreted mode so that if a change is made and its horribly wrong, it just throws an exception.

obsurveyor 11y ago

You're ignoring all the people that aren't trying to replace Javascript because they're... using Javascript. It's has a lot of warts but with some mindfulness it's entirely usable. No one can argue that people aren't getting things done with it and being successful.

Roboprog 11y ago
Thank you. All of these BlahBlahScript wrappers don't change the fact that I still have to debug (and thus read, anyway) Javascript in the browser. Javascript isn't assembler, it's actually mostly OK to read - I kind of like it. I only recently discovered JSDoc, and it goes a long way towards documenting types when they matter, especially if your IDE/editor (e.g. - WebStorm) recognizes the annotations and displays them when you click on a symbol.