javascript vision thing

kai zhu kaizhu256 at gmail.com
Tue Nov 28 14:19:45 UTC 2017


> On Tue, 28 Nov 2017 at 6:51 pm, T.J. Crowder <tj.crowder at farsightsoftware.com> wrote:
> You mean, it's a tool to write computer instructions for taking input, manipulating it, and generating output? Breaking news: That's what all programming languages are.

@T.J. the thing about javascript as a "tool mainly for baton-passing
JSON-data around",
is that unlike other programming languages that take generic io data,
javascript oftentimes doesn't need a
class-abstraction layer to parse the input, or serialilze to output,
because they are already in JSON.

i already demonstrated the feasibility of a non-trivial webapp
that has no class-abstraction layer -
it relies on static-functions instead to directly manipulate JSON/plain-text
to/from io (aside from builtin classes like XMLHttpRequest that i have
to use for ajax).

showing you can efficiently manage javascript's JSON-focused io with
static-functions and no class-abstraction layer then raises the
question of the necessity of all the class-related tc39 proposals
being considered.

demo urls:
1. https://kaizhu256.github.io/node-swgg-google-maps/build..beta..travis-ci.org/app/#!swgg_id__2Fmaps_2Fapi_2Fdirections_2Fjson_20GET_1

2. https://kaizhu256.github.io/node-swgg-wechat-pay/build..beta..travis-ci.org/app/#!swgg_id__2Fpay_2Fmicropay_20POST_1




On 11/28/17, Naveen Chawla <naveen.chwl at gmail.com> wrote:
> I oppose moderation. These views about ES, however misguided they might
> seem, allow us to reaffirm the reasons why decisions were made and guide
> those with similar views to the answers to their concerns. I don't see any
> loss, only gain, in engaging these concerns.
>
> On Tue, 28 Nov 2017 at 13:46 James Kyle <me at thejameskyle.com> wrote:
>
>> I don't understand what this thread is even trying to achieve.
>>
>> This mailing list should really just be shut down. The lack of moderation
>> ruins it and it sucks having to subscribe to it for the occasional
>> important/interesting information/discussion. I'd rather have that
>> content
>> moved to one of the other channels of communication which have been more
>> successful.
>>
>> On Tue, 28 Nov 2017 at 6:51 pm, T.J. Crowder <
>> tj.crowder at farsightsoftware.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 6:40 AM, kai zhu <kaizhu256 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > if i were asked what the vision of javascript is my current
>>> > answer would be:
>>> > "javascript is a tool to take JSON-input, manipulate it, and
>>> > output it back out (via DOM, event-handling, network-socket,
>>> > file-io, or db-driver)."
>>>
>>> You mean, it's a tool to write computer instructions for taking input,
>>> manipulating it, and generating output? Breaking news: That's what all
>>> programming languages are.
>>>
>>> If you mean *specifically* JSON, and *specifically* a DOM, and
>>> *specifically* network I/O and DBs and...well, sorry; as you've been
>>> repeatedly told, *your* vision is at odds with that of the JavaScript
>>> community at large and, I believe, of the committee. JavaScript is
>>> bigger
>>> than that. Cope. Because I don't see that changing. Harping on about
>>> that
>>> conflict on this list is simply not useful.
>>>
>>> > es5 was the epitomy of achieving that vision in the simplest way
>>> possible.
>>>
>>> Great. Again: Keep using it. Nothing is stopping you or anyone else. The
>>> committee have done a *huge* amount of work to maintain backward
>>> compatibility. (Speaking of which: In all the harping, I don't recall
>>> hearing a thing from you *appreciating* that hard work from the
>>> committee.
>>> Did I just miss it?) Yes, it's 99.99999999% instead of 100%, and code
>>> written assuming nothing would ever change (say, values from `typeof`)
>>> was
>>> ever-so-slightly impacted. Well, that's unfortunate, but it's very much
>>> an
>>> exception to the rule of compatibility, the decision was not made
>>> lightly
>>> or without research on impact, and it's not like it takes any
>>> significant
>>> time to fix the code in question. Rather less time than complaining
>>> about
>>> it on the list, in fact.
>>>
>>> You have a different view from most reasonably-informed people on this.
>>> You're entitled to it. As a reasonably-informed person, you're entitled
>>> to
>>> express it, and you have. It's time to move on.
>>>
>>> -- T.J. Crowder
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> es-discuss mailing list
>>> es-discuss at mozilla.org
>>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> es-discuss mailing list
>> es-discuss at mozilla.org
>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Screen Shot 2017-11-28 at 2.21.10 PM.png
Type: image/png
Size: 396615 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20171128/60c7ebcf/attachment-0002.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Screen Shot 2017-11-28 at 9.30.24 PM.png
Type: image/png
Size: 526129 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20171128/60c7ebcf/attachment-0003.png>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list