3 ms·
Interesting perspective. I've been sort of on the other side of the fence and excited about new features. With that said, I do love the simplicity of C and ho
by niix 11y ago
Interesting perspective. I've been sort of on the other side of the fence and excited about new features. With that said, I do love the simplicity of C and how the features of the language itself are very minimal and learning all of the language is fairly simple task.
Do you think maybe the push for the extra functionality is an effort to standardize the millions of JS libraries out there that do this "high-level" functionality already, rather than leaving it up to the user for interpretation?
- tracker1 11y agoIt's sometimes painful trying to even approach standardizing on a given framework of tools... I've been using babel + browserify and leaning on whatever shims it provides... I mean, even if I limit myself to lodash/underscore, bluebird, and jQuery, I've got a lot of overlapping bits in there... swap jQuery for react and my composition becomes a lot better, but even then I'm using either the ugly method invocation, or creating derived classes (which makes me feel dirty for some reason). Look at even a modest node.js project, and dig into your node_modules tree, it's amazing how many different modules wind up in your codebase to do the exact same thing(s). Ramda, lodash, underscore all in there, and hopefully not all leaking into your client-side. Hell, I'm working on a project now that has both jQueryUI and Bootstrap components in play... and a dozen or so extensions/modules for each of them.... It's pretty ugly pretty quickly. And I don't think the likes of Component or Polymer are all that better in practice. The more that starts to be in the box, and the better people understand it the better in a lot of ways.