Classes are widely used on the web. See any modern web framework. On Wednesday, July 25, 2018, kai zhu <[email protected]> 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 > [email protected] > > On 24 Jul 2018, at 5:56 PM, T.J. Crowder <[email protected]> > wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 11:27 AM, kai zhu <[email protected]> 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 [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
