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 <kaizhu...@gmail.com> 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@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
