4 ms·

No, actually, it doesn't. C++ is a huge language, javascript is a relativly small one. I know it's funny to compare the size of "Javascript the good parts" with

No, actually, it doesn't. C++ is a huge language, javascript is a relativly small one. I know it's funny to compare the size of "Javascript the good parts" with "Javascript the definitive guide", but that's can be attributed to writing style more than percentage of language covered.

MaulingMonkey 11y ago
> No, actually, it doesn't. Perhaps less in what features to avoid, but there's plenty of hidden gotchas to avoid in JavaScript still. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=et8xNAc2ic8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=et8xNAc2ic8 https://dorey.github.io/JavaScript-Equality-Table/ https://dorey.github.io/JavaScript-Equality-Table/ > C++ is a huge language, javascript is a relativly small one. C++'s ISO/IEC 14882:2003 weighs in at 786 pages, compared to ECMA-262 (5.1 Edition)'s 258 pages (measuring by PDF reader). A ~3x difference, but not quite the order of magnitude I'd expect from huge vs small.
- furyofantares 11y ago
  And we share 50% of our DNA with a tree... That's not meant to be snarky, but what's is the minimum size of a language spec? I don't know the answer, but I'd think the delta over that would be the better comparison. For example if you can't really spec a language in less than 200 pages then C++'s spec is more like 10 times as big as JavaScript.
  - bremac 11y ago
    Scheme has the smallest (useful) language specs that I know of. For example, R5RS is 48 pages (44 if you exclude the back matter.)
    - waps 11y ago
      Here is one of the smallest useful (ie. turing complete) language's full specification : > Subtract and branch if not equal to zero[edit] > The SBNZ a,b,c,d instruction ("Subtract and Branch if Not equal to Zero") subtracts the contents at address a from the contents at address b, stores the result at address c, and then, if the result is not 0, transfers control to address d (if the result is equal zero, execution proceeds to the next instruction in sequence). This is all of it.
    - MaulingMonkey 11y ago
      I imagine Brainfuck could be reasonably specced in around 5-10 pages, based on the size of the Wikipedia description. EDIT: Said Wikipedia page was sufficiently detailed for me to implement a Brainfuck -> MSIL compiler without additional external references, which I was able to verify worked with a Mandelbrot renderer.
  - bjterry 11y ago
    The scheme R5RS standard is 50 pages, and is considered quite small for any real language. The Haskell 2010 Language Report is 239 pages. The Forth ANSI standard is 220 pages and is a seemingly simple language.
  - kibwen 11y ago
    "Number of pages in specification" is a rather useless metric to use to compare languages, since there are so many variables. And not just things like point size or margins or what have you, but the contents themselves vary. Some specifications include an EBNF grammar, others may try to describe it via natural-language rules, and others may just say "see the reference implementation". Some specifications include documentation on the language's standard library (the scope of which is a factor that itself varies greatly from language to language), and some of these will go into differing amounts of detail (e.g. providing upper bounds for computational complexity of algorithms). Some languages will go into great detail about memory models (especially low-level ones), while others will wave it away as an implementation detail. TL;DR: don't trust anyone who tries to use the length of a specification as a comparable proxy for complexity. I can write a 10,000-page standard for Scheme if you hire me to.
    - MaulingMonkey 11y ago
      > "Number of pages in specification" is a rather useless metric to use to compare languages, since there are so many variables. How would you prefer to compare language sizes? Gut feel? Surely that's even worse. I'll certainly admit that - like LOC measurements - it's a metric one can't take too seriously on it's own. On the other hand, it's a useful starting point for discussing said variables. For example, when I was eyeballing the Javascript standard (I've already read the C++ standard a decent bit), I saw it (like C++'s) defines a grammar, and includes some core library bits (e.g. the Object type.) On the other hand, I didn't see the full browser DOM API you'd use when writing most Javascript - but then again, you don't see any modern graphics or UI widget APIs in the C++ standard either. This was enough to convince me that they were comparable enough for an orders-of-magnitude comparison, at least. My gut reaction was that C++'s standard might be more detailed - but that'd be biased in my favor, further undermining the argument that Javascript is significantly smaller than C++. > I can write a 10,000-page standard for Scheme if you hire me to. But can you find a 10,000 page standard, for any language? Eventually everyone hits a limit to what they consider worthwhile to write, short of perverse incentives.
      - kibwen 11y ago
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- pjmlp 11y ago
  > C++'s ISO/IEC 14882:2003 weighs in at 786 pages, Including the standard library. I don't know about JavaScript, but at least Python, Java and C# are actually quite more when including the standard library.

MaulingMonkey 11y ago

> No, actually, it doesn't. Perhaps less in what features to avoid, but there's plenty of hidden gotchas to avoid in JavaScript still. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=et8xNAc2ic8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=et8xNAc2ic8 https://dorey.github.io/JavaScript-Equality-Table/ https://dorey.github.io/JavaScript-Equality-Table/ > C++ is a huge language, javascript is a relativly small one. C++'s ISO/IEC 14882:2003 weighs in at 786 pages, compared to ECMA-262 (5.1 Edition)'s 258 pages (measuring by PDF reader). A ~3x difference, but not quite the order of magnitude I'd expect from huge vs small.

furyofantares 11y ago
And we share 50% of our DNA with a tree... That's not meant to be snarky, but what's is the minimum size of a language spec? I don't know the answer, but I'd think the delta over that would be the better comparison. For example if you can't really spec a language in less than 200 pages then C++'s spec is more like 10 times as big as JavaScript.
- bremac 11y ago
  Scheme has the smallest (useful) language specs that I know of. For example, R5RS is 48 pages (44 if you exclude the back matter.)
  - waps 11y ago
    Here is one of the smallest useful (ie. turing complete) language's full specification : > Subtract and branch if not equal to zero[edit] > The SBNZ a,b,c,d instruction ("Subtract and Branch if Not equal to Zero") subtracts the contents at address a from the contents at address b, stores the result at address c, and then, if the result is not 0, transfers control to address d (if the result is equal zero, execution proceeds to the next instruction in sequence). This is all of it.
  - MaulingMonkey 11y ago
    I imagine Brainfuck could be reasonably specced in around 5-10 pages, based on the size of the Wikipedia description. EDIT: Said Wikipedia page was sufficiently detailed for me to implement a Brainfuck -> MSIL compiler without additional external references, which I was able to verify worked with a Mandelbrot renderer.
- bjterry 11y ago
  The scheme R5RS standard is 50 pages, and is considered quite small for any real language. The Haskell 2010 Language Report is 239 pages. The Forth ANSI standard is 220 pages and is a seemingly simple language.
- kibwen 11y ago
  "Number of pages in specification" is a rather useless metric to use to compare languages, since there are so many variables. And not just things like point size or margins or what have you, but the contents themselves vary. Some specifications include an EBNF grammar, others may try to describe it via natural-language rules, and others may just say "see the reference implementation". Some specifications include documentation on the language's standard library (the scope of which is a factor that itself varies greatly from language to language), and some of these will go into differing amounts of detail (e.g. providing upper bounds for computational complexity of algorithms). Some languages will go into great detail about memory models (especially low-level ones), while others will wave it away as an implementation detail. TL;DR: don't trust anyone who tries to use the length of a specification as a comparable proxy for complexity. I can write a 10,000-page standard for Scheme if you hire me to.
  - MaulingMonkey 11y ago
    > "Number of pages in specification" is a rather useless metric to use to compare languages, since there are so many variables. How would you prefer to compare language sizes? Gut feel? Surely that's even worse. I'll certainly admit that - like LOC measurements - it's a metric one can't take too seriously on it's own. On the other hand, it's a useful starting point for discussing said variables. For example, when I was eyeballing the Javascript standard (I've already read the C++ standard a decent bit), I saw it (like C++'s) defines a grammar, and includes some core library bits (e.g. the Object type.) On the other hand, I didn't see the full browser DOM API you'd use when writing most Javascript - but then again, you don't see any modern graphics or UI widget APIs in the C++ standard either. This was enough to convince me that they were comparable enough for an orders-of-magnitude comparison, at least. My gut reaction was that C++'s standard might be more detailed - but that'd be biased in my favor, further undermining the argument that Javascript is significantly smaller than C++. > I can write a 10,000-page standard for Scheme if you hire me to. But can you find a 10,000 page standard, for any language? Eventually everyone hits a limit to what they consider worthwhile to write, short of perverse incentives.
    - kibwen 11y ago
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
pjmlp 11y ago
> C++'s ISO/IEC 14882:2003 weighs in at 786 pages, Including the standard library. I don't know about JavaScript, but at least Python, Java and C# are actually quite more when including the standard library.