On Wed, 07 Dec 2011 05:52:31 -0800, Dmitriy Sintsov <[email protected]>  
wrote:

> On 07.12.2011 13:33, Dmitriy Sintsov wrote:
>> * Trevor Parscal<[email protected]>  [Tue, 6 Dec 2011 17:21:43
>> -0800]:
>>> The hype of "2.0" aside, is there a guideline for what should
>> constitute
>>> a
>>> major version number change?
>>>
>>> It looks like we are doing something like: Major.Minor.Release
>>>
>>> 1.18 = Major: 1, Minor: 18, (alpha|beta|etc.)
>>>
>>> I'm just curious what people think would constitue a major version.
>>> We've
>>> certainly had major rewrites of systems in the past that didn't seem
>> to   
>>> justify a version bump. Is there anything wrong with having version
>>> 1.249?
>>> Is there a practical reason for bumping the version at some point
>> (like
>>> when the minor version hits tripple digits)?
>>>
>>> Also, a rewrite of MediaWiki should for sure be done in Node.js :)
>>>
>>> - Trevor
>>>
>> Is Javascript really that good? Some people dislike prototypical
>> inheritance, it seems that jQuery prefers to use wrappers instead
>> (that's a kind of suboptimal architecture). Also, Google had some
>> complains about Javascript flaws (for example primitive types don't
>> allow high performance available in Java / C#), suggesting to replace it
>> with something else.. Although having common clientside / serverside
>> codebase is nice thing, for sure. And there's nothing more widespread
>> than Javascript at client side. Also, it's object side is strong
>> (something like Lisp with C-syntax), however it does not have generics,
>> named parameters etc..
>> Dmitriy
>>
>>
> A small correction: functional side, not object side.
> Dmitriy

Generics, named parameters? Why are you picking on things that even php  
doesn't have.
If you want names parameters JS is even closer than php. It has a more  
concise object syntax which means that foo({asdf: 1}) is barely any longer  
than a normal function call to type, compared to the php equivilant which  
is foo(array('asdf' => 1)).

And jQuery is jQuery. It uses it's funky syntax for a reason related to  
what it does.


Now I AM a JavaScript on the server guy (I have a company web application  
that runs with server side JavaScript and I even participated in the  
CommonJS pesudo-wg group for awhile) but I'm not so sure about Node.js  
being the way forward.

Actually, aiming for something with ES5+harmony/next features might even  
be the best. Traceur could add the features client side.

var {Foo, Bar} = asdf;
var [asdf, qwery] = arr;
function foo(bar = 5, ...rest) {}
for ( let key in obj ) {}
(x for ( x of list ) if (x % 2 === 0))
module Foo {
   export let bar = 42;
}
var obj = {
   [variable]: value,
   foo(bar) { return bar+1; }
   get baz() { return 5; }
};
let text = "qzx$cv";
"asdfzx$cvqwerty".match(re`^adsf${text}qwerty`);
"foobar".startsWith("foo");
typeof null === "null";


-- 
~Daniel Friesen (Dantman, Nadir-Seen-Fire) [http://daniel.friesen.name]

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Reply via email to