On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 3:37 PM, Florian Bösch <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 12:18 AM, Brendan Eich <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> The solution is not to hate JS. It's not going to change incompatibly. >> Rather, you can use linters, "transpilers", compilers, voluntary unchecked >> subsets -- all possible today. > > > So basically "the best way to use JS is to not use JS". Awesome.
That's the downside of shipping your programs to customers as source, and letting them use any of 100+ compilers of varying ages and quality to compile your code. (There's plenty of upsides, of course.) As Brendan said, examples of other languages don't really apply, because they compile on the developer end, and just ship binaries to customers. (Or something that has the same effect, like shipping source+interpreter to customers in a package.) If you want to benefit from those network dynamics, you have to compile on your end, or in the language of today, "transpile". That doesn't mean "not use JS" - Babel and related projects let you use modern JS, and you can apply whatever restrictions you want. Or you can go ahead and abandon JS, and use one of the myriad of alternative transpilation languages. Whatever floats your boat. But you can't get around the mathematics. Delivering plain source, without a well-controlled compiler monopoly, means breaking changes are very, very hard to make. Best to make peace with it and engineer around it, rather than futilely fight it. ~TJ _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
