[nodejs] Re: javascript vision thing

Naveen Chawla naveen.chwl at gmail.com
Sun Sep 23 04:37:49 UTC 2018


ES6 doesn't encourage any design patterns. All it does is allow you to
shorten existing constructs into simpler-to-program ones, and
simpler-to-understand ones. I want TC39 to continue in this vein, making
big things easier to accomplish with less, hence, speeding up development
time (very important) and reducing the surface area for potential bugs
(also very important). And, I want them to be very aggressive (fast) in
this regard

On Sun, 23 Sep 2018 at 07:15 kai zhu <kaizhu256 at gmail.com> wrote:

> this is not a troll-account, and I’m a live-person with realistic (albeit
> uncomfortable) views on limitations of javascript product-development in
> industry.
>
> es6 seems to adopt java’s philosophy that with careful-planning, you can
> create semi-permanent, well-abstracted code during the design-phase that
> will last throughout the product-development cycle.  my experience with
> numerous web-projects, both successful and failed, indicates this approach
> as flawed.  and i believe most people in industry who have been burned by
> failed web-projects in the past (due to over-encumbered/engineered
> initial-designs that couldn’t cope with realities of product
> integration/qa) are wary of hiring unproven java-turned-js devs who still
> hold these brittle design-philosophies.
>
> there's no such thing as “permanent” javascript-code in
> product-development.  everything eventually gets rewritten, when the
> inevitable business-critical ux feature-request comes in that you must
> accommodate, even though it breaks your current integration-workflow.  when
> this common scenario plays out in industry:
>
> a) the [inexperienced] unqualified js-dev likely dithers, unwilling/unable
> to unwind the complicated initial-design they architected to accommodate
> the feature-request, while
> b) the [experienced] qualified js-dev would have anticipated this, and
> simply rewrites their initial expendable-code with new expendable-code to
> accommodate the feature-request (with expectation it will be rewritten
> again-and-again in the future).
>
> its difficult for employers to discern whether js-devs will exhibit trait
> a) or trait b) through technical-interview alone.  and es6 skews this with
> design-patterns biased towards trait a), further confusing employers
> seeking qualified js-devs.
>
> kai zhu
> kaizhu256 at gmail.com
>
>
>
> On 23 Sep 2018, at 1:43 AM, Zlatko Đurić <zladuric at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I don't know why I can't resist this troll. I've just spent half an hour
> writing an elaborate answer on how the whole premise is wrong, knowing that
> this is a known troll account. Well, I've deleted it all and will not fall
> for his trolling again.
>
>  (Btw I thought this list is moderated, how come his same-all troll
> ramblings always pass the mods?)
>
> Zlatko
>
> On Sat 22. Sep 2018 at 18:26, Michael J. Ryan <tracker1 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Considering how many js devs fail to answer "what values evaluate to false
>> in JavaScript". It isn't the new features that are the problem.
>>
>> There's a combination of problems.  People believing they're better
>> developers than they are.  People who look down on js and front end
>> development.  And those ahead to learn new things.
>>
>> JS isn't really evolving any more than Java, C#, go, python and others as
>> a whole in the past 20 years.  And having to fight uphill to use newer
>> features is a pain.  I'm not on the younger side of this (I'm 42)... But
>> I've managed to keep up.
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 21, 2018, 17:14 kai zhu <kaizhu256 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> a problem i've observed in industry is that many es6 language-features
>>> have the unintended-consequence of incentivising incompetent
>>> javascript-developers at the expense of competent-ones.  its generally
>>> difficult for many employers (even those knowledgeable in general-purpose
>>> programming), to discern between:
>>>
>>> a) a competent javascript employee/contractor who can get things done
>>> and ship products (albeit with legitimate delays), and
>>> b) an incompetent-one who can easily hide themselves in non-productive
>>> es6 busywork, and continually pushback product-integration (again with
>>> “legitimate” delays, until its too late).
>>>
>>> its gotten bad enough that many industry-employers no longer trust
>>> general-purpose-programming technical-interviews when recruiting js-devs,
>>> and rely almost exclusively on either a) an applicant's reputation /
>>> word-of-mouth for getting things done, or b) their ability to complete a
>>> time-consuming tech-challenge, where they must demonstrate ability to ship
>>> a mini-product.  both methods are not scalable to meet the demand in
>>> industry for qualified js-devs in product-development.
>>>
>>> the only solution i can think of to this industry-problem is to
>>> hold-back on introducing new disruptive/unproven javascript
>>> design-patterns, and figuring out how to educate the industry with
>>> tightened javascript style-guides and existing design-patterns proven to
>>> work (more is less); generally, ways to enhance the current, woefully
>>> inadequate “bullsh*t detector” of employers so they can better identify and
>>> mentor/train/weed-out unqualified js-devs.
>>>
>>> kai zhu
>>> kaizhu256 at gmail.com
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> es-discuss mailing list
>>> es-discuss at mozilla.org
>>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Job board: http://jobs.nodejs.org/
>> New group rules:
>> https://gist.github.com/othiym23/9886289#file-moderation-policy-md
>> Old group rules:
>> https://github.com/joyent/node/wiki/Mailing-List-Posting-Guidelines
>> ---
>>
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
>> Google Groups "nodejs" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/nodejs/p81p-_FqS-s/unsubscribe.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
>> nodejs+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
>
>
>> To post to this group, send email to nodejs at googlegroups.com.
>>
> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/nodejs/CA%2BpgmMoRmv-P-8a%2B6JCj8szBcJ_32fPULL3DqrZp%2B3SgMZLTDw%40mail.gmail.com
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/nodejs/CA%2BpgmMoRmv-P-8a%2B6JCj8szBcJ_32fPULL3DqrZp%2B3SgMZLTDw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>> .
>
>
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
> --
> Zlatko
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180923/fde7cbb8/attachment.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list