Mostly a lurker here. I fully agree with your points, and also use JS for non-web projects.
On Wed, Jul 25, 2018, 07:34 T.J. Crowder <[email protected]> wrote: > Lurkers: If I'm alone in this, please say so. If I'm **not** alone, please > say so (publicly this time). Either way, I'm done as of this message other > than linking back to it. > > On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 11:33 AM, kai zhu > <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 > > This is where we differ (well, one place we differ), as I've said many > times before, and others have said many times before. That future is now. > > How we got here is irrelevant. Where we **are** is that JavaScript is a > general-purpose programming language good for a lot more than just > web-related work. And "web" technologies are used for a lot more than just > the web, witness all those mobile app frameworks using HTML/CSS/JavaScript, > Windows store apps, Electron, etc. It's also a good language for writing > *nix shell scripts and command-line utilities, particularly now that it has > `async`/`await`. There are at least a dozen JavaScript engines for doing > embedded device work, completely removed from the web environment. And so > on. > > Separately, the idea that web projects don't benefit from features like > `class`, `async`/`await`, and meta-programming features and such is flatly > contradicted by the evidence. > > But leave all that aside. We all know you don't agree with that. You've > told us, ad nauseum. It's not that we haven't heard what you're saying, > it's that we disagree with it. (I say "we" because I've had private > messages from people supporting my pushback on this. I wish they'd be made > publicly.) Taking every vague opportunity to push your view of JavaScript > as a niche, limited language is not constructive at this point. > Robustly-expressed differing views are an essential part of > consensus-building, but there comes a point where one has to accept that > one's view has not been successful *and move on*. I think frankly we're > well past that point on this topic, and have been for a while. Specific > input on proposals is great, including raising specific concerns with > serialization etc. (ideally with a proposed solution, but sometimes just > raising a concern is useful). Putting forward constructive, specific > proposals for things you think TC39 should be acting on is great. > Constantly trying to push a view clearly at odds with the consensus of the > community here is just not useful, and gets in the way of useful > conversations we could be having, including about the things you care about > getting done. Please, please move on. > > And again: I think you're right that issues around JSON interop with new > features like BigInt need focus (here, in the proposal itself, in some JSON > working group, somewhere), and there seems to be interest in doing so. So > if that's an area of interest for you, please contribute to that effort, > rather than spending time beating this dead horse. > > I'm not going to keep writing these replies, I'll just refer to this one > from now on. > > And again, lurkers, please weigh in. > > -- T.J. Crowder > > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
