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 <k...@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 <kaizhu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, 28 Nov 2017 at 6:51 pm, T.J. Crowder < > > > > > > tj.crow...@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.c...@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 <m...@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.crow...@farsightsoftware.com> wrote: > > > >>> On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 6:40 AM, kai zhu <kaizhu...@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@mozilla.org > > > >>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > > > >> > > > >> _______________________________________________ > > > >> es-discuss mailing list > > > >> es-discuss@mozilla.org > > > >> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > es-discuss mailing list > > > es-discuss@mozilla.org > > > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > es-discuss@mozilla.org > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
