On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 at 13:39 Scott Barnes <[email protected]> wrote:
> I disagree, i think people are constantly asking the "better" question. > [ ... ] but i'd argue that if the devs had the choice over ECMA 6, CSS3 and HTML5 > vs ECMA 3x, CSS2 and HTML5 ...i'd probably guess what the $100 spends would > bring back, that is better typescript style language support which would > ideally compliment their practices and behaviours today (plus tooling could > probably lock onto better more focused patterns of code). > > If you can argue (or anyone) that breadth has no factoring into the > JavaScript as a nominated "answer" then I'd be curious to see how you avoid > that subject. It has to be the driver behind its adoption. > I think JS' breadth IS why it is the "answer". I have turned into a pragmatist in my middle age and would look straight past the fact that it is software engineering arse and embrace it and look to what breadth does for shareholder returns. David. -- David Connors [email protected] | @davidconnors | LinkedIn | +61 417 189 363
