javascript vision thing

Isiah Meadows isiahmeadows at gmail.com
Tue Nov 28 19:41:26 UTC 2017


I think you pretty much hit the nail on the head here. Probably best if we
can just let this thread die now.

On Tue, Nov 28, 2017, 10:20 kdex <kdex at kdex.de> wrote:

> I apologize for my ignorance, but I've been seeing this thread in my inbox
> for
> around a month now, and most of what's being discussed is just people
> glorifying ES5 and other people justifying the usefulness of recent
> language
> additions.
>
> This discussion has gone way off-topic and appears to be a general rambling
> thread about certain language standards or even the language itself. I
> don't
> see how this discussion is productive in any way.
>
> Could someone please point out the exact problem that this discussion is
> trying to solve? Note that the usual platitudes apply, i.e.,
>
> - Classes have been standardized and aren't going anywhere, and the same
> applies to functions. Get used to things evolving.
> - The language has its weirdnesses, yes, but so does every other language.
> - Classes are just syntactic sugar, so why would it be so tremendously
> hard to
> mix them?
> - What stops you from just not using the features that your personal
> ideology
> or religion forbids you to use?
>
> Please *do* correct me if I'm missing the point here, but I just can't see
> what this thread is trying to achieve.
>
> On Tuesday, November 28, 2017 3:46:05 PM CET J Decker wrote:
> > 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20171128/0a1601d3/attachment.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list