> Classes are widely used on the web. See any modern web framework. indeed, and i conjecture in doing so, developers have caused more harm than good for their employers in getting their web-projects shipped, when JSON-serialization web-integration problems arise.
On Jul 25, 2018 17:44, "Michael Theriot" <michael.lee.ther...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Classes are widely used on the web. See any modern web framework. > > > On Wednesday, July 25, 2018, kai zhu <kaizhu...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> @tj, would you or i care about nodejs/javascript if the language did not exist in browsers? in fact would anyone on tc39 give a damn about javascript (aside from its creator) in that scenario? as i've said before [ad nauseam], the only drive most of us [non-frontend-developers] have in javascript is making our backend-programs accessible to the masses via browsers/webviews. javascript’s dominance/relevance in industry is as a *web-integration* language. and its aided by its special-ability to directly serialize JSON data-structures (an underrated, and very useful web-integration feature), while most of its competitors have to rely on clumsy, hard-to-serialize classes. >> >> 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. so why does tc39 insist on pushing distracting language-features (clumsy java-like classes, non-integration-friendly meta-programming, static module-loading, etc.) for an unrealistic future-scenario that’s not going to happen? >> >> kai zhu >> kaizhu...@gmail.com >> >>> On 24 Jul 2018, at 5:56 PM, T.J. Crowder < tj.crow...@farsightsoftware.com> wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 11:27 AM, kai zhu <kaizhu...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> tldr - tc39 should focus more on JSON-friendly javascript-language-features >>>> instead of wasting-time on hard-to-serialize classes/meta-programming. >>> >>> >>> This is a false dichotomy (the fallacy of the either/or choice). I'd >>> agree we're approaching, or at, the need for the next thing after >>> JSON, and that some focus on that would be a good thing. That doesn't >>> mean stopping work on other good things. Perhaps you could take the >>> lead on addressing the issues you run into. I'm sure constructive >>> input would be welcomed. >>> >>>> my problem with tc39, is that they “claim” javascript is a general-purpose >>>> language (and try to design it as such), when industry-wise, its really not. >>> >>> >>> Yes, it is. Just because you don't see it that way doesn't mean others >>> don't. And others have been telling you they see it differently >>> repeatedly over a long period of time on this list. >>> >>>> if tc39 is sincerely >>>> interested in keeping javascript a dominant/relevant language in industry, >>>> they should focus on *practical* (vs *academic*) features >>> >>> >>> `class` notation is practical (simplifying a common pattern and making >>> it less error-prone). (I know you don't use that pattern. That's fine. >>> But lots of people do, so it's practical for them whether you like the >>> pattern or not.) Promises are practical (simplifying and standardizing >>> callbacks, making them composable; again making them less >>> error-prone). `async`/`await` is HUGELY practical, massively >>> simplifying writing asynchronous code. Arrow functions, rest and >>> spread, default parameter values -- all practical. (NOT trying to put >>> words in your mouth, but if you were going to reply "Yes, but those >>> problems could already be solved in others ways.", then: Sure, and we >>> could all write assembly code, too. But it's *useful* to address these >>> in the language.) >>> >>> All of them are useful beyond the web. All are also useful in web programming. >>> >>> I have no problem with skepticism of specific proposals. What I would >>> find useful, though, would be a focus on the proposal's merits, rather >>> than constant re-raising of this claim that JavaScript is a web-only >>> language. You've made that claim, ad nauseum. My view is that it's >>> been rejected by the list membership and by TC39, but whether that's >>> true or I'm mistaken, please stop spamming the list with it. We all >>> know how you feel about it. >>> >>> But again: I'm sure constructive, research-based input on how to deal >>> with JSON issues related to (for instance) BigInt would be welcome in >>> that BigInt thread and, ideally, eventually a proposal. There's no >>> need for some big conceptual argument over the course of the language >>> -- that *is* a waste of time. >>> >>> -- T.J. Crowder >> >>
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
