I disagree.
PHP have WeakReferences, OGG manipulation, MPEG manipulation, builtin
support for Kerberos, Bzip2 bindings, Zlib bindings, configurable random
number generation, OpenSSL bindings, simple hashing, drivers for databases,
ImageMagick bindings, arbitrary precision math, statistics support, GPG
support, PostScript support, Judy Arrays, neural networks, Lua integration,
FTP support, XML support, 9 data structures, recursive iterators with well
defined interfaces etc.

All of them are missing in JavaScript. PHP have extremely bloated standard
library - and JS have very minimal one.

On Sun, Aug 6, 2017 at 4:32 AM, kai zhu <kaizhu...@gmail.com> wrote:

> my thoughts are the opposite. javascript (similar to perl and php) already
> has a huge number of specialized builtin functions and methods accumulated
> over its 20+ year evolution that pretty much solves every practical problem
> encountered in frontend programming (and effectively backend as well). the
> problem is a failure to educate new programmers on how to use existing
> builtins to elegantly solve everyday problems, instead of having them
> ignorantly reinvent things on their own.
>
> the mindset to writing javascript programs is more akin to writing perl
> programs, e.g. "how do i leverage builtins to implement the requested
> one-off UX feature using elegant perl-like one-liners", instead of "how do
> i create extra abstractions, classes, and modules to implement this one-off
> UX feature".
> My thoughts: big source of JavaScript criticism is its small standard
> library and community attempts to solve that issue - hundreds of small
> modules. Significant part of lodash should be present in standard library.
> My lodash selection - chunk, dropWhile, first, last, flatten, fromPairs,
> pull, without, takeWhile, zip, flatMap, keyBy, property, groupBy,
> partition, sample, shuffle, sortBy, ary, memoize, once, operators as
> functions, clamp, inRange, get, mapKeys, mapValues, pickBy, many strings
> operations, attempt, constant, flow, noop, range.
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 5, 2017 at 1:22 PM, T.J. Crowder <
> tj.crow...@farsightsoftware.com> wrote:
>
>> I'd find it helpful to have:
>>
>> 1. A general steer from TC39 as to whether the committee are committed
>> to a robust, feature-rich standard library, or a minimal one (with the
>> expectation of a rich ecosystem of libraries, presumably).
>>
>> 2. Guidelines of what to consider when proposing standard library
>> features.
>>
>> The latter can come from the community; the former needs to come from
>> TC39.
>>
>> We see a fair number of simple lib function proposals on the list, it
>> would be useful to have some guidelines for what's worth properly
>> proposing and what's likely to be a non-starter.
>>
>> Naveen Chawla's [recent suggestion][1] is a good case in point: A
>> standard lib function for taking an array (ideally, an iterable) and
>> creating an object with properties referencing the elements by one of
>> their property's values. (One could easily argue for a Set version as
>> well.) Ignoring the details of his suggestion, this is a simple
>> operation that I've needed in every codebase I've ever worked on. I
>> haven't proposed it (having considered doing so repeatedly) because my
>> perception had been that TC39 wants to keep the standard lib small.
>> But with the additions in 2015, 2016, and 2017, is that simply not the
>> case (anymore)?
>>
>> Apologies if either (1) or (2) already exist and I've overlooked them.
>>
>> -- T.J. Crowder
>>
>> [1]: https://esdiscuss.org/topic/array-prototype-toobjectbyproper
>> ty-element-element-property
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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

Reply via email to