pierbover11 at gmail.com
Wed Jul 25 17:41:41 UTC 2018
Lurker here, I also agree with most points expressed by T.J. Crowder.
the addition of class and async/await only make the language better, and if
optional static types were included (a la TypeScript or ES4) it would
I also think the Node ecosystem is a mess, and that Electron is a plague,
but those points are completely unrelated to the language itself. There are
projects such as https://nodekit.io/ that aim to provide a bloat-free
universal Electron / Cordova replacement.
On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 12:00 PM, Jacob Pratt <jhprattdev at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 farsightsoftware.com>
>> 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 gmail.com> wrote:
>> > 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.
>> 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
>> 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
>> 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
>> 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 mozilla.org
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the es-discuss