"Ary Manzana" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]... > > I think it's cool you can convert D to JS, but I don't see why anyone > would want to do it. > > 1. JS is a superior language: variables are dynamic and are not bound to > just one single type during their lifetime. JS objects can store any > property. > 2. JS funcions are much easier to write (no need to declare types) and > also to pass around (no need to write "&").
Are you insane or just masochistic? ;) > 3. With JS you don't have to compile and run your code (well, I guess you > could make something smart in D for that). Meh. I've done a lot of web work where "no compile" is common, and I've never seen it as really being that big of a deal (unless you're using something like C++ that takes ages to compile). It's an overrated selling point of such langauges, IMO, much like "Our langauge doesn't require semicolons!" Meh, so what? Trivialities. > 4. If you write JS you can debug it in the browser. No need to track back > to the original source code. Not a bad point. Although Adam's suggestion does help mitigate it. > 5. If you don't like JS syntax or verbosity, you can use CoffeeScript, > which is just a syntax rewriter, not a language/paradigm shift: > http://coffeescript.org/ Bleh. I hate JS with a passion and I'd still much rather use straight JS than CoffeeScript. CoffeeScript has a few nice bits of sugar, but the basic syntax is just plain horrid. At least plain JS doesn't have that indent-syntax abomination that's so popular these days. > 6. Javascript objects have some built-in properties that are different > from D. So implementing those in D would make their performance worse (but > you can always hard-code those functions into the compiler and translate > them directly to their JS equivalent). > If you're doing any non-trivial JS, you can *expect* it to be slow, period. This is like saying "I drive a $100k sports car with 600 horsepower and yet I care about my gas mileage". Just kinda goofy.
