6 ms·

I'd counter this > But programmers don't want better languages With TypeScript and/or ES6(7)+Babel. These have a pretty healthy userbase between them and ther

I'd counter this > But programmers don't want better languages With TypeScript and/or ES6(7)+Babel. These have a pretty healthy userbase between them and there's a lot of excitement around ES6 which leads me to think that developers do want better languages. Also... I want a better language. I'm not sure how you'll convince me otherwise and I don't think I'm alone in this sentiment. Do they want a "different" language... maybe, maybe not. I suppose my comment about Apple "positioning" (and I'm careful to use that word) Swift as a replacement to Javascript can make a lot of sense to Apple and people who develop for iOS and OS X. Firstly, Apple doesn't need buy in from other browser vendors. They can supply a Swift runtime with Safari (desktop and mobile) and I think it would be no more difficult to write a Swift to ES5 transpiler than it is to write an ES6/7 to ES5 transpiler, meaning that web devs can be agnostic about what browser their web app is running on and make demote Javascript to simply being a build task. Secondly - Swift is going to have a lot of developer support. Because native apps are are increasingly dependent on a corresponding Web API - I think it's reasonable to expect people to be happy about sharing code between the front and back ends of their apps. I think nodes biggest advantage over any other server-side languages is that I can use node packages in both place. Thirdly - I don't think Apple really cares wether "web developers" have an issue with this. They care about providing tools and solutions for people who develop for and use their platforms. If they can make the case that Swift is going to be "better" than Javascript by some metric we don't know right now, then that's what they'll do. Everyone else can go cry in a corner. Also, Down-votes? Really? It's not the most radical idea in the world and I fail to see how someone could take offence from it. PS: Apologies but I don't have time to watch that video right so I hope I haven't got the wrong end of the stick.

pluma 11y ago
I agree, in part. Programmers do want better languages, but they are extremely allergic to friction. Parts of ES6/7 are relatively low friction thanks to Babel. But even so moving the majority of JS devs to modern JS is a very slow and long process. Swift may make a dent if Swift-to-JS becomes a thing, but compile-to-JS languages are mostly a failed experiment (see the lack of success of "serious" languages like Dart or the decline of CoffeeScript). The advantage of Babel over other to-JS compilers is that you're just compiling JS to JS and it carries the promise that one day you won't need the compilation step at all. The "JavaScript is the ASM of the Web" idea, while enticing, has time and again failed to come true. I don't think Swift can succeed where others have failed, even if it would allow iOS developers to write web apps. At the risk of having to swallow my words, I don't think Swift-in-the-browser poses any risk to JS. I also don't think Swift-on-the-server will have a major impact, although I can imagine iOS-heavy shops wanting to use Swift when developing server APIs for their apps. I agree that Apple will carry on regardless. Apple is all about controlling their ecosystems, so I wouldn't be surprised if they try to pose Swift as an alternative to JS (much like their unilateral CSS extensions back in the day). About the video: basically Douglas Crockford (of JSON fame and JSLint infamy) argues that history has proven that developers (as a whole) favour similarity over "betterness" when it comes to the success of programming languages. They're more likely to pick something that is nearly exactly like what they already know than something that requires them to adjust their mental model, even if it is superior in nearly every way. The entire series is worth a watch IMO, and helps appreciating why and how JS got to the point where it is today.

pluma 11y ago

I agree, in part. Programmers do want better languages, but they are extremely allergic to friction. Parts of ES6/7 are relatively low friction thanks to Babel. But even so moving the majority of JS devs to modern JS is a very slow and long process. Swift may make a dent if Swift-to-JS becomes a thing, but compile-to-JS languages are mostly a failed experiment (see the lack of success of "serious" languages like Dart or the decline of CoffeeScript). The advantage of Babel over other to-JS compilers is that you're just compiling JS to JS and it carries the promise that one day you won't need the compilation step at all. The "JavaScript is the ASM of the Web" idea, while enticing, has time and again failed to come true. I don't think Swift can succeed where others have failed, even if it would allow iOS developers to write web apps. At the risk of having to swallow my words, I don't think Swift-in-the-browser poses any risk to JS. I also don't think Swift-on-the-server will have a major impact, although I can imagine iOS-heavy shops wanting to use Swift when developing server APIs for their apps. I agree that Apple will carry on regardless. Apple is all about controlling their ecosystems, so I wouldn't be surprised if they try to pose Swift as an alternative to JS (much like their unilateral CSS extensions back in the day). About the video: basically Douglas Crockford (of JSON fame and JSLint infamy) argues that history has proven that developers (as a whole) favour similarity over "betterness" when it comes to the success of programming languages. They're more likely to pick something that is nearly exactly like what they already know than something that requires them to adjust their mental model, even if it is superior in nearly every way. The entire series is worth a watch IMO, and helps appreciating why and how JS got to the point where it is today.