javascript vision thing

Jacob Pratt jhprattdev at
Wed Jul 25 17:00:27 UTC 2018

Mostly a lurker here. I fully agree with your points, and also use JS for
non-web projects.

On Wed, Jul 25, 2018, 07:34 T.J. Crowder <tj.crowder at>

> 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
> on.
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the es-discuss mailing list