5 ms·

Learn Dart :)

by kelvin0 11y ago

Learn Dart :)

tempodox 11y ago
As minimalistic as your comment is, I think it points to the single most important truth about JS: It's practically impossible for human beings to write “good” JS code. The only hope you have is using a sane language with sane concepts that can be compiled down to the JavaScript of the week (ES6, ASM.js, the works...). I would argue that JS should be handled analogously to Assembler: Good for you if you understand it, but only highly trained field specialists in protective suits dare to write production code in it. Go and get a decent compiler if you can't avoid using that technology.
- moron4hire 11y ago
  ... I'll never, for the life of me, understand comparing a high-level scripting language to almost the lowest of low-level assembly languages, as if JS doesn't give you abstractions at all. If you can't write good code in JS, it's because you're a bad programmer.
  - mitchi 11y ago
    As a veteran C++ developer, I actually quite enjoy Javascript. Once I understood that Prototypes are linked lists and that *this is a pointer that changes according to 2 simple rules, Javascript became quite easy. I mean they even give you a GUI debugger. It's hard to get stuck for long, even though it's not not a Visual Studio. Like you said, you have already all the abstractions you need with this language. You can do complex things and for me, if I have composition, I'm pretty much already good to go.
    - moron4hire 11y ago
      Composition is really the key.
  - tempodox 11y ago
    Just as much as you're a bad programmer if you can't write good assembler code. And I don't mean that ironically. But academically being able to write in a certain language is still not the same thing as productivity combined with certain quality guarantees.
    - moron4hire 11y ago
      IDK, I've been writing JS since it was invented, so 20 years now. It was one of the first languages I learned and even then I thought it was easy. Certainly easier than C, which I was also teaching myself because it was clear at the time that nobody took JS seriously. And that was at a time when there were ZERO libraries. It took almost 10 years before anyone started serious work on libraries for JS. Up to that point, you just copy-pasta'd snippets. I remember thinking it was easy like VB but was easier to show to other people. I still think of it in similar terms: easy to write like Python but a hell of a lot easier to deploy and show off.
- aaron-lebo 11y ago
  > I think it points to the single most important truth about JS: It's practically impossible for human beings to write “good” JS code. I'm sorry, but that's just an absurd statement. JS isn't that bad or confusing.
  - kelvin0 11y ago
    It's so easy to write code and have something running. It's a whole other affair with regards to a 'structured' project involving a team of devs. If you look at the myriad of libraries and frameworks for JS, just so the dev workflow stays at a sane level without ending up with masses of balls of muds. Including a .js within a .js has to be done outside of the language ... and that is just the tip of the iceberg last time I checked.
  - tempodox 11y ago
    So, what's the point of WebAssembly? https://brendaneich.com/2015/06/from-asm-js-to-webassembly/ https://brendaneich.com/2015/06/from-asm-js-to-webassembly/ Do you write that manually, too?
    - aaron-lebo 11y ago
      I think the point of it is that so people have choice on the client side. That doesn't make JS impossible to write or a bad language.
mightybyte 11y ago
Lol, nice. I was going to say "Learn Haskell", but I figured I'd be downvoted into oblivion. In all seriousness I am actually using that strategy and so far it seems to be working well.
- kelvin0 11y ago
  Well I mentionned Dart because it is a very small step up to learn when you know Javascript. Not sure the same can be said of JS -> Haskell ... don't get me wrong I started looking into Haskell and I find it fascinating!
  - codygman 11y ago
    Instead of JS -> Haskell I think I'd recommend JS -> Purescript[0][1] 0: http://www.purescript.org/ http://www.purescript.org/ 1: https://leanpub.com/purescript/read https://leanpub.com/purescript/read
    - mightybyte 11y ago
      Ahh yes, PureScript is definitely a good suggestion.

Learn Dart :)

by kelvin0 11y ago

Learn Dart :)

As minimalistic as your comment is, I think it points to the single most important truth about JS: It's practically impossible for human beings to write “good” JS code. The only hope you have is using a sane language with sane concepts that can be compiled down to the JavaScript of the week (ES6, ASM.js, the works...). I would argue that JS should be handled analogously to Assembler: Good for you if you understand it, but only highly trained field specialists in protective suits dare to write production code in it. Go and get a decent compiler if you can't avoid using that technology.

moron4hire 11y ago
... I'll never, for the life of me, understand comparing a high-level scripting language to almost the lowest of low-level assembly languages, as if JS doesn't give you abstractions at all. If you can't write good code in JS, it's because you're a bad programmer.
- mitchi 11y ago
  As a veteran C++ developer, I actually quite enjoy Javascript. Once I understood that Prototypes are linked lists and that *this is a pointer that changes according to 2 simple rules, Javascript became quite easy. I mean they even give you a GUI debugger. It's hard to get stuck for long, even though it's not not a Visual Studio. Like you said, you have already all the abstractions you need with this language. You can do complex things and for me, if I have composition, I'm pretty much already good to go.
  - moron4hire 11y ago
    Composition is really the key.
- tempodox 11y ago
  Just as much as you're a bad programmer if you can't write good assembler code. And I don't mean that ironically. But academically being able to write in a certain language is still not the same thing as productivity combined with certain quality guarantees.
  - moron4hire 11y ago
    IDK, I've been writing JS since it was invented, so 20 years now. It was one of the first languages I learned and even then I thought it was easy. Certainly easier than C, which I was also teaching myself because it was clear at the time that nobody took JS seriously. And that was at a time when there were ZERO libraries. It took almost 10 years before anyone started serious work on libraries for JS. Up to that point, you just copy-pasta'd snippets. I remember thinking it was easy like VB but was easier to show to other people. I still think of it in similar terms: easy to write like Python but a hell of a lot easier to deploy and show off.
aaron-lebo 11y ago
> I think it points to the single most important truth about JS: It's practically impossible for human beings to write “good” JS code. I'm sorry, but that's just an absurd statement. JS isn't that bad or confusing.
- kelvin0 11y ago
  It's so easy to write code and have something running. It's a whole other affair with regards to a 'structured' project involving a team of devs. If you look at the myriad of libraries and frameworks for JS, just so the dev workflow stays at a sane level without ending up with masses of balls of muds. Including a .js within a .js has to be done outside of the language ... and that is just the tip of the iceberg last time I checked.
- tempodox 11y ago
  So, what's the point of WebAssembly? https://brendaneich.com/2015/06/from-asm-js-to-webassembly/ https://brendaneich.com/2015/06/from-asm-js-to-webassembly/ Do you write that manually, too?
  - aaron-lebo 11y ago
    I think the point of it is that so people have choice on the client side. That doesn't make JS impossible to write or a bad language.

mightybyte 11y ago

Lol, nice. I was going to say "Learn Haskell", but I figured I'd be downvoted into oblivion. In all seriousness I am actually using that strategy and so far it seems to be working well.

kelvin0 11y ago
Well I mentionned Dart because it is a very small step up to learn when you know Javascript. Not sure the same can be said of JS -> Haskell ... don't get me wrong I started looking into Haskell and I find it fascinating!
- codygman 11y ago
  Instead of JS -> Haskell I think I'd recommend JS -> Purescript[0][1] 0: http://www.purescript.org/ http://www.purescript.org/ 1: https://leanpub.com/purescript/read https://leanpub.com/purescript/read
  - mightybyte 11y ago
    Ahh yes, PureScript is definitely a good suggestion.