Kai, you are not speaking for all Web-Developers here and Web-Developers are not the only users of JavaScript, please keep that both in mind. If you do not like the idea of e.g. weak references, do not use them. But for some caching tasks it is just necessary and I would love to see them.

You wrote "...is a failure to educate new programmers on how to use existing builtins to elegantly solve everyday problems..." - existing builtins do not provide anything which can be used to get weak references. And maybe you should educate yourself to find out, what a feature like "weak references" can be used for. Else you are just not in the position to say: "-1 footgun most web-devs have no idea how to use correctly (including me)" - it is not a lack of the feature, but a lack of yours. You shouldn't drive a train if you don't know how. But you also should not say that trains are useless, just because you do not know, how to operate them. I often saw, that you tend to argue that features, which you do not like or not know how to use are not needed by web developers, especially not in asia. Don't you think, that's a bit arrogate?

On 06.08.2017 13:44, kai zhu wrote:

-1 footgun most web-devs have no idea how to use correctly (including me)

OGG manipulation,
-0.5 slightly prefer it as an npm module

MPEG manipulation,
-0.5 slightly prefer it as an npm module

builtin support for Kerberos,

Bzip2 bindings,
-1 use nodejs child_process system calls to bzip2. i don’t see any common use-case for bzip2 other than file-to-file operations which can be accomplished with shell-scripting.

Zlib bindings,
already a nodejs builtin

configurable random number generation,
-1 Math.random is good-enough for most use-cases. for the normal-distribution use-case, its easy enough to write your own transform with sine/cosine.

OpenSSL bindings,
already a nodejs builtin

simple hashing,
+1 would be nice to have

drivers for databases,
+1 a STABLE nodejs sqlite3 builtin is sorely needed for embedded systems (instead of the flaky npm module), but need to nag nodejs folks, not tc39

ImageMagick bindings,
-1 use nodejs child_process system calls to imagemagick. i'm skeptical builtin bindings would be significantly more efficient enough to be worth the effort.

arbitrary precision math,
-0.5 generally against due to it confusing people with 2 different numeric types, though i slightly sympathize with accounting/finance use-cases for decimal arithmetic.

statistics support,
+1 would be useful

GPG support,

PostScript support,
-1 use nodejs child_process system calls, as bindings would not be significantly more efficient.

Judy Arrays,
-1 too esoteric and confusing to understand what the use-cases are for most web-devs

neural networks,
-1 slightly too big a scope, and more the domain of wasm

Lua integration,

FTP support,
-0.5 i don’t see much use-case for an ftp-client but i may be wrong

XML support,

9 data structures,
-1 javascript is a high-level language with a builtin feature-set targeted for expressing high-level concepts like ajax, file-uploads, event-handling, dom-manipulations, programmable forward/reverse proxies, etc. its NOT a low-level language for creating esoteric data-structures and algorithms in academia that have little relevance to web-development.

recursive iterators
javascript already has recursive closures that i frequently use like recursive iterators

On Aug 6, 2017, at 5:40 PM, Michał Wadas <michalwa...@gmail.com <mailto:michalwa...@gmail.com>> wrote:

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 <mailto: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

    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
    <mailto:tj.crow...@farsightsoftware.com>> wrote:

        I'd find it helpful to have:

        1. A general steer from TC39 as to whether the committee are
        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
        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

        es-discuss mailing list
        es-discuss@mozilla.org <mailto:es-discuss@mozilla.org>

    es-discuss mailing list
    es-discuss@mozilla.org <mailto:es-discuss@mozilla.org>

es-discuss mailing list

Michael Kriegel • Head of R&D • Actifsource AG • Haldenstrasse 1 • CH-6340 Baar 
• www.actifsource.com • +41 56 250 40 02

es-discuss mailing list

Reply via email to