javascript vision thing

J Decker d3ck0r at gmail.com
Tue Nov 28 14:46:05 UTC 2017


On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 6:19 AM, kai zhu <kaizhu256 at gmail.com> wrote:

> > 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 has grown to be a generally useful language; and indeed because
it had the ability to read generic IO data; maybe that's somewhat
incorrect... systems supporting javascript have been created that allow
generic IO.

NodeOS   https://node-os.com/
some really powerful fontend chosts - Electron and NWJS for instances (
above and beyond what a browser can do itself, or working standalone
without requiring passing batons to anyone)

3D and Vr programming https://webvr.info/  https://threejs.org/

I used it to create 100's of millions of bingo cards (would have been able
to do that faster if I had threads but broke it up into several processes
in parallel and managed it quite quickly) Those got output as a binary
format (also SQL and CSV flavors)

It even works well to add logic to GUI elements created outside of a
browser https://www.npmjs.com/package/sack.vfs#frame-methods

I do think you're looking at the world somewhat myopically or with a bit of
tunnel vision.

While true, classes don't help in basically any of those cases... and they
really tke javascript as just the pure functional language it started as (
just like it's C roots, which I found rather amused that Functional
Programming is this 'grand new thing that javascript does'

I would have used classes more, but since they encapsulate no data, I found
them more of a hinderance to develop since I had to do all the work in a
constructor/factory anyway the extra cryptic layer I find unnessecary.  If
it had supported data fields, I'd think there would be additional
performance benefits to having a full template, without having to adjust
underlaying tracking to add fields all the time.

>From long time in C, my development practice is always to create the data
structures I'm using and then create the functions to manipulate said
structures;  having functions first and nothing to operate on is kinda
useless... Javascript does such a habit a little harder to follow,
requiring a factory for the structure first  like these ...
https://github.com/mrdoob/three.js/tree/dev/src/math vectors, matrixes,
etc....




> 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
> >>
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20171128/ff70fb49/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list