A Homepage for the JavaScript Specification
hacks.mozilla.org
hacks.mozilla.org
At the moment though there's nothing in it. No search capabilities or unique content and practically all links redirect to github. This isn't an MVP it's a prototype, with little value at the moment. Hopefully things will improve soon, but by shipping such a skinned down website they won't get the product launch effect again.
What search capabilities are you hoping for that are currently missing?
Nobody uses the product right now, and by product I mean the TS39 website. And assuming that one of the purpose of the website is to be used they'll want the site to have traffic and traction or it's just a waste of effort.
Product launch can have a very big effect on future traffic - that means that many people are exposed to the site, and if it proves useful they might also start using it. As it stands no one is going to return to this site instead of going directly to the github account.
"What search capabilities are you hoping for that are currently missing? "
At the top of the hat, searching for specs in different stages? or by topic, or date. Without search the site can't be a location for discovery, and since it has no new content, it isn't a consumption website either. If you look at it, its basically a glorified landing page. Not something that is useful for the majority of its audience, I believe.
Seems to be the new website from where I'm sitting. The spec is linked from the header. It might be an old instance, but it is clearly meant to be used as part of the new.
https://tc39.github.io/ecma262 , which is the github pages for the ecma262 repository, has existed since September 2015 - https://web.archive.org/web/20150929233059/https://tc39.gith...
Personally I don't have a problem with it, since Typescript offers "soft" access modifiers that work fine for any use cases I can think of.
we have shipped a website
That is an unusual phrasing. Was it too simple to use "created"?
Compiling to javascript was never a good idea, it was only ever, at best, an adequate kludge for which no alternative existed. Now we have Webassembly, an actual bytecode which can run on native platforms and the web, and which doesn't carry the semantic issues that come with compiling one high level language to another poorly written, poorly designed, poorly typed one and pretending it's basically the same as machine code running on bare metal.
We can finally drive Javascript back to the web where it belongs and where it should remain quarantined.
If you're talking about compiling from javascript to another language... that seems neither useful or desirable.
To you. JavaScript and TypeScript are the languages I am most productive in. There are use cases that I would benefit from being able to compile JavaScript to another language, or native code.
How are you coming to that conclusion? The current Tiobe index still has Java, C and Python topping the popularity charts. [1] If you put any credence into whatever this W3Tech site is about, Javascript's popularity as a server-side language even seems to be overblown. [2]
[1] https://www.tiobe.com/tiobe-index/ [2] https://w3techs.com/technologies/overview/programming_langua...
> There is a reason it is used so much outside of webpages.
I'm asking how you are coming to this conclusion. I personally do not see any evidence to support this and if you take any of these popularity/usage surveys into account, they do not support this either.
> 7th or 8th most used programming language. That counts as ‘a lot’ to me.
I mean, come on...that's not the same thing as "is used so much outside of webpages".
Here’s a Node package:
https://www.npmjs.com/package/left-pad
Node.js is for server side programming, not Javascript in the DOM. The package has almost 3 million downloads, weekly. To me, that is a lot.
It looks bonkers, and not in a good way.