bjornjajeja

64 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by bjornjajeja 5y ago

   Well put... However, the unfortunate thing about web technology is that websites no longer support NOSCRIPT. If we want true global compatibility, it’s HTML + CSS and ZERO JavaScript. That has immense privacy benefits too.
2. 2.▲
   by bjornjajeja 5y ago

   Actually, it assumes only that evolution of new features slows down. Once things are _slow enough_ the value of an extra dependency is dramatically reduced.
3. 3.▲
   by bjornjajeja 5y ago

   You’re right that was an off topic note. I guess what I’m getting at is that most current browsers support very nice JavaScript features anyway. And instead of adding yet another layer between our code and the browser—embrace the current ge
4. 4.▲
   by bjornjajeja 5y ago

   You might call it a tanspiler and technically it IS. But the Babel homepage calls it a compiler. In any case, for the plethora of down voters: Babel states: “Use next generation JavaScript, today” At some point next gen == current gen, and
5. 5.▲
   by bjornjajeja 5y ago

   Honestly the very idea of a JavaScript compiler like that is destined for obsolescence per standardized features added to browsers. Folks should just develop their own shims where necessary and TEST AGAINST VARIOUS BROWSERS. Sure no one lik
6. 6.▲
   by bjornjajeja 6y ago

   I think a lot of it had to do more with business requirements than art or science. The business folks stroll in and make these generic one-click deploy type things to get sites up and running quickly, at the expense of being vetted by good