javascript vision thing

T.J. Crowder tj.crowder at
Wed Jul 25 11:34:29 UTC 2018

Lurkers: If I'm alone in this, please say so. If I'm **not** alone, please
say so (publicly this time). Either way, I'm done as of this message other
than linking back to it.

On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 11:33 AM, kai zhu
<kaizhu256 at> wrote:
> there is no foreseeable future where javascript will be a better tool
> than java/c++/python/etc. for non web-related projects.  there is no
> foreseeable future where employers would hire nodejs-developers to
> work on non web-related projects

This is where we differ (well, one place we differ), as I've said many
times before, and others have said many times before. That future is now.

How we got here is irrelevant. Where we **are** is that JavaScript is a
general-purpose programming language good for a lot more than just
web-related work. And "web" technologies are used for a lot more than just
the web, witness all those mobile app frameworks using HTML/CSS/JavaScript,
Windows store apps, Electron, etc. It's also a good language for writing
*nix shell scripts and command-line utilities, particularly now that it has
`async`/`await`. There are at least a dozen JavaScript engines for doing
embedded device work, completely removed from the web environment. And so

Separately, the idea that web projects don't benefit from features like
`class`, `async`/`await`, and meta-programming features and such is flatly
contradicted by the evidence.

But leave all that aside. We all know you don't agree with that. You've
told us, ad nauseum. It's not that we haven't heard what you're saying,
it's that we disagree with it. (I say "we" because I've had private
messages from people supporting my pushback on this. I wish they'd be made
publicly.) Taking every vague opportunity to push your view of JavaScript
as a niche, limited language is not constructive at this point.
Robustly-expressed differing views are an essential part of
consensus-building, but there comes a point where one has to accept that
one's view has not been successful *and move on*. I think frankly we're
well past that point on this topic, and have been for a while. Specific
input on proposals is great, including raising specific concerns with
serialization etc. (ideally with a proposed solution, but sometimes just
raising a concern is useful). Putting forward constructive, specific
proposals for things you think TC39 should be acting on is great.
Constantly trying to push a view clearly at odds with the consensus of the
community here is just not useful, and gets in the way of useful
conversations we could be having, including about the things you care about
getting done. Please, please move on.

And again: I think you're right that issues around JSON interop with new
features like BigInt need focus (here, in the proposal itself, in some JSON
working group, somewhere), and there seems to be interest in doing so. So
if that's an area of interest for you, please contribute to that effort,
rather than spending time beating this dead horse.

I'm not going to keep writing these replies, I'll just refer to this one
from now on.

And again, lurkers, please weigh in.

-- T.J. Crowder
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the es-discuss mailing list