Comment by sisk | Hacker News Reader

Comment by sisk | Hacker News Reader

"There is no need in this world for manual screwdrivers because a drill can do the same job with less work."

I don't understand the vitriol. Is JavaScript perfect? No but I don't think anyone has ever made that argument. Can you build web applications with it? Absolutely.

The fact of the matter is JS can run on more "things" than anything else. Period. This includes legacy systems. Don't like the language? That's totally fine and, to an extent, understandable. But, holy shit, it's a highly accessible tool: learn it and stop complaining.

"But there are better tools!" Ok, that's great, but those tools aren't presently available in your toolbox. So write your own library to implement missing feature x. Syntax not terse enough for you? Write a preprocessor. Since you won't be the first, a lot of the hard work has already been done for you. Consider publishing it. Do what every other developer doing anything on the web has had to do for years: improve your sandbox.

"But these features should be standard!" They're not. Write the 3-5 lines to fix it and move on. Want to go the extra mile? Talk to the folks who run the show (the ecma folks).

Not happy with the tools? Fix them. Chromium and Firefox are OSS; write other runtimes into them. Push for their adoption. Does that seem like an insurmountable task? Then perhaps leverage what is available to you.

All of this religious debate is nonsense.

How does it not blow your mind that you can write one bit of code and have it instantly available on the vast majority of devices released in the last 20+ years? Yeah, you'll have to write polyfills and hacks, and there will be a lot of boilerplate, but think about that for a second: one bit of code and it runs on phones / tvs / computers / calculators / toasters. Do you have to write it using a tool that was originally designed for a dramatically different environment? Yup. Can you still do it? Yup. How is that not amazing?

C and even C++ run in far more places than Javascript does or ever will. People using other languages won't be interested in or able to use your library written in Javascript.

Anyway, I don't particularly care about writing code that runs on every device ever. I want to write code to solve problems, and for a large set of problems Javascript inside a web browser is fairly useless. Javascript is great if your economic model is getting as many users as possible and then getting aquhired before you run out of capital. This is the case for a lot of people on HN, even if they don't realise it. However I'm a small time developer, not in SV, who programs because I enjoy solving problems and helping people, not to get rich. I'm only really interested in whether $(number of people who can run the code) * $(how much they can pay) > $(my cost of living) so that I can afford to eat. It means I don't care so long as the platform/language I choose has enough users to pay my bills, it doesn't have to be 100% of people. I realise that the industry giants at Google or Mozilla don't really care about people like me ('life style business' is usually a term of derision on HN). In a world of web based operating systems that only run web apps I would end up stacking shelves in the supermarket or on the dole because I dislike that technology stack enough that I can't be productive in it. That is why sometimes I bitch about Javascript.

I don't understand how you connected Javascript with that particular start-up mentality. "Solving problems and helping people" as a development approach is platform agnostic; if you wanted to do that through the web then hey, you would probably use Javascript to accomplish that.

My point is that the benefit of Javascript (i.e. being able to run on all consumer computers with (almost) a single code base) isn't a benefit that interests me. I tried to explain why because I know that a lot of people on HN have very different reasons for wanting to develop software -- people don't apply to YC because they are building a small lifestyle business to support their family.

>if you wanted to do that through the web then hey, you would probably use Javascript to accomplish that.

Well personally I wouldn't since as I said I'd rather not develop software at all then use Javascript/CSS/HTML.

Of course the rest of the industry has no obligation to continue supporting the open native platforms that allow me to use the technologies I prefer. However I don't think it is unreasonable to moan when I see those platforms being killed.

I wish you wouldn't bitch about it at such length with a point that barely makes any sense. 'Only SV posers use JS". Everyone who has a computer, whether handheld or a laptop or whatever, has a browser. There's your distribution. How you blamed its problems on startup mentality I don't even know how you got there.

I think you are just reenforcing my point. I really don't care about targeting 'everyone who has a computer'. Really. I mean it.

I want to use technologies that I enjoy, and I can do that so long as enough people use computers that I can deploy those technologies to.

What I don't want is to be forced to use technologies I dislike just because it's where the money is in the industry and the people with power have decided it benefits them to sell devices that only allow software that runs in the javascript sandbox.

Maybe the reason right now this is where the money is because consumers demand more of the capabilities that Javascript can give them, not because some overlords decided this was going to finally get those lazy programmers.

Personally, I enjoy writing in Javascript a lot. I like how it's more functional than other mainstream languages. And if we're going to debate style, that's great, but distribution just isn't a problem of Javascript, instead, one if its greater strengths.

learn it and stop complaining.

Your post complaining about complaining doesn't make the best case against complaining in general.

You're just bitching in the opposite direction and telling people that unless they agree with you on the topic, they can't express their opinion in same rhetorical style you do.

Talking of rhetoric, has the old "complaining about complaining - hypocrite!" shutdown been persuasive, ever?

I will admit to having been an anti-JavaScript elitist (without really knowing JS.)

This video changed my mind: http://youtu.be/hQVTIJBZook (google tech talk, "JavaScript: the good parts")

Two facts mentioned in the video that I didn't previously know and make me feel better about JavaScript: 1- JavaScript is lisp in disguise 2- The name JavaScript is an inside joke referencing the language's differences from Java, not its similarities.

That was enough to make me change my mind, and I'm currently enjoying learning JavaScript unashamedly. Browser differences and lack of standards are a PITA, but OTOH, they all have awesome debuggers - HTML+JavaScript may be the only UI toolkit + dev environment that comes packaged with ALL computers, and for that reason has the widest reach.

There's no question that the JS world is a bit wild west compared to other languages, but there's also no question that the situation is getting better over time, and that depending on what you're coding, there are huge advantages to using it.

>Two facts mentioned in the video that I didn't previously know and make me feel better about JavaScript: 1- JavaScript is lisp in disguise

That is unfortunate because it isn't really true: http://journal.stuffwithstuff.com/2013/07/18/javascript-isnt...

Haters gotta hate...

This is an opinion post, not a statement of fact. There's also no byline on that very hyperbolic and negative opinion post. I don't need to defend JavaScript's Schemeness or Douglas Crockford. (I'm sure Douglas is perfectly capable of doing that by himself.)

The obvious authority argument: Given random dude on the internet (heretofore to be known as "Stuff" in reference to his web site), and the guy who wrote jslint and is currently fixing JavaScript, on the topic of what other languages JavaScript is most like, I will defer to Douglas for now.

First and foremost in the actual reasons "Stuff" is wrong is this claim:

[saying javascript is scheme is] "...a thought-terminating cliché. It carries negative informational content and makes people actually know less about languages than they did before."

I am walking talking evidence that "Stuff" is dead wrong on this point. The idea that JavaScript has the functional language parts that I like in Python and Scheme made me curious about the language, allowed me to drop by preconceptions, and I investigated further and learned more about the language. That may well be the exact intention of Douglas saying JavaScript is Scheme-y, which it turns out, "Stuff" admits to before he gets started. This completely undermines the point that "Stuff" was trying to make here, before he makes it.

Second, "Stuff" capitulates to 1/3 similarity on the number of core Scheme features. Except, as he notes, another several are reasonably there but not up to his snuff. That puts us at more like 1/2 to 2/3. The other third is crap nobody wants in a modern language. "Stuff" is being (admittedly) biased about where he draws the line.

The most telling is that he points right at the things that we all want in a language: minimalism, first class functions, and closures. He comes right out and names all the languages we like and hold up as being "better" than JavaScript. :O There's no better reason to call JavaScript Scheme-y.

For reference the author is Bob Nystrom: http://www.stuffwithstuff.com/bob-nystrom.html , user 'munificent' on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=munificent not that it should matter who he is.

Since I'm talking about him I'll say I think his Game Programming Patterns book is great: http://gameprogrammingpatterns.com

This. The great thing about JS, and time has proved this, is just how powerful a concept it was from the start and just how misunderstood it was. Just because people misused the flexibility of the language does not make it a bad one.

http://www.crockford.com/javascript/javascript.html

As the JS engines in browsers have got better and more "real developers" have come on board the wild west is no longer so wild. The problem I found before was that front-end developers would code JS but they had no formal education in programming, so they couldn't grasp those OO concepts. If you look at some of the libraries and JS code out there now you'd be amazed at the standard of code. Most of it far beyond me now, I haven't coded in JS in some time.

The religious debate between people being practical and the various kinds of people who attack them will rage on forever. In most online communities, the haters and purists will typically win arguments, because they generally have more time and patience to argue than the people busy getting things done.

It's basic human nature for us to behave this way. It's tribalism: "it's not how I roll, I don't understand it, therefore I hate it" is pretty natural for us.

>The fact of the matter is JS can run on more "things" than anything else.

I think you mean more "things that one can superficially observe in a coffeeshop." :)

That's one way to observe it. I like to look at it as devices my users will expect to use my software on.

Distribution today is much easier than it was a decade ago. App Stores and the proliferation of the internet have contributed a lot to this.

I'd hope that distribution comes to matter less and less in the future as we increase our ability to distribute something new.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com