John J. Barton
johnjbarton at johnjbarton.com
Wed May 11 07:36:55 PDT 2011
On 11:59 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
> On May 10, 2011, at 4:53 PM, Douglas Crockford wrote:
>> I look at ECMAScript as serving four groups:
>> 1. The beginners for whom the language was designed.
>> 2. The web developers who owe their livelihoods to the language.
>> 3. The scientists who will use the language for greatness.
>> 4. Language designers and critics.
> I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "scientists". The third group I
> would identify are professional software developers who will use the
> language to implemented complex applications of the soft that today
> are more commonly implemented using Java, C++, etc. These are larger
> systems that need more emphasis upon upon abstraction building in
> order to manage the domain and application complexity.
> At a meeting today, the dichotomy we used in talking about this is the
> difference between "imperative programmers" and "abstraction
> builders". Imperative programmer know how to use basic imperative
> statements to manipulate predefined abstractions. Abstraction
> builders create such abstractions. I think that all of your #1 and
> much of #2 are "imperative programmers". While we need to continue to
> improve the language for this group we also need to start better
> serving the needs of the abstraction builders. Much of what we have
> promoted to proposal status seems to be oriented target on this latter
Both application developers and library/framework developers benefit
from clear, widely understandable code. Adding bizarre special
characters and programming constructs that require world-class
programming language expertise to understand helps neither group.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the es-discuss