...

To my mind, there is one very big reason we should be cautious about adopting JS language-design policies, namely, that they have led to a very, very poorly designed language. No doubt a good deal of that is baggage from early stages in which JS had a poor to nonexistent language design governance model. Nonetheless, the failure of JS to fix its numerous fundamental flaws, and especially the rapid feature churn in recent years, suggests to me that their model should be viewed with skepticism. I disagree. The language is often very flexible and effective in its domains. I don’t know what you mean by “rapid feature churn”, churn usually means existing features are superseded by newer ones- this isn’t

Le 22/09/2018 à 20:27, James Lu a écrit : the case.

JS is much more nuanced than it appears on the surface. It’s

understandable that those with only a glossing of JS look down on it, because JS really was a primitive language a few years ago.

You can learn about JS in depth with the poorly-named “You don’t know

JS” free online book.

I worked with JS for the last 10 years, and I agree that "we should be cautious about adopting JS language-design policies", particularly about the fact they completly ignored readability in their concerns. But still, using the old JS baggages to justify we reject what they are doing currently is not a good argument: - they can't break the whole Web so deprecation is very hard. Python 2 => 3 should make us understand that. Yes it sucks you can still declare a variable global by default. It also sucked we had to rewrite most good python modules during the last decade. - the new JS features have been so far a good fit for the language and overall made it better. - fast pace evolution is only for the JS ecosystem (and I agree it's terrible). But the spec and implementations have been very reasonable in their progress. Now it's hard to know if it's because of the design policy or in spite of it. But while I still dislike JS, it IS a vastly better language that it used to be and we should not disregard the design policies because of these particular issues.

...

To my mind, there is one very big reason we should be cautious about adopting JS language-design policies, namely, that they have led to a very, very poorly designed language. No doubt a good deal of that is baggage from early stages in which JS had a poor to nonexistent language design governance model. Nonetheless, the failure of JS to fix its numerous fundamental flaws, and especially the rapid feature churn in recent years, suggests to me that their model should be viewed with skepticism. I disagree. The language is often very flexible and effective in its domains. I don’t know what you mean by “rapid feature churn”, churn usually means existing features are superseded by newer ones- this isn’t

Le 22/09/2018 à 20:27, James Lu a écrit : the case.

JS is much more nuanced than it appears on the surface. It’s

understandable that those with only a glossing of JS look down on it, because JS really was a primitive language a few years ago.

You can learn about JS in depth with the poorly-named “You don’t know

JS” free online book.

I worked with JS for the last 10 years, and I agree that "we should be cautious about adopting JS language-design policies", particularly about the fact they completly ignored readability in their concerns. But still, using the old JS baggages to justify we reject what they are doing currently is not a good argument: - they can't break the whole Web so deprecation is very hard. Python 2 => 3 should make us understand that. Yes it sucks you can still declare a variable global by default. It also sucked we had to rewrite most good python modules during the last decade. - the new JS features have been so far a good fit for the language and overall made it better. - fast pace evolution is only for the JS ecosystem (and I agree it's terrible). But the spec and implementations have been very reasonable in their progress. Now it's hard to know if it's because of the design policy or in spite of it. But while I still dislike JS, it IS a vastly better language that it used to be and we should not disregard the design policies because of these particular issues.