|
I enjoyed it! Virtually all of your complaints are about jQuery. I don't use jQuery 
|
|
|
|
|
I got a chuckle out of that as well.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."
- Benjamin Disraeli
|
|
|
|
|
I think you're conflating JS with web programming. Lets not forget NodeJS baby!
1. While the DOM technically is part of JS, it's only in the context of web programming.
2-7. These were all JQuery, which is not the same as Javascript. I know I speak on behalf of many a JS purist when I say JQuery can die in a hole.
8. Well you already answerd this one.
9. Agreed, frameworks are dumb. But blaming JS for frameworks is like blaming Tim Berners Lee for 4Chan.
10. I don't really have an argument for this one. Obviously I use JS but I've been doing it for so long that *humble brag* I generally don't write code that doesn't work. My IDE tells me when I make a typo though...
TBH it seems to me that you have more of a problem with Jquery. And if this is the case, I think we are in furious agreement.
|
|
|
|
|
grolarbear wrote: I think you're conflating JS with web programming.
How can Javascript be separated from web development?
grolarbear wrote: Lets not forget NodeJS baby!
Yeah. Right. I will never write anything in NodeJS. It's absurd to me to even consider using Javascript for back-end development. Actually it's absurd to me to even consider using Javascript for anything, but there's little choice in that for web development. I do have a choice in server-side stuff. 
grolarbear wrote: These were all JQuery
True. I was realizing that when writing the post. But even if you want jQuery to die in a hole, it's seems so standard (it's pretty hard to find examples that don't use jQuery, particularly examples of 3rd party libs by those very same 3rd parties) and so is again, for web development, entangled.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Beats me. I haven't touched Perl in a loooong time. You're on your own. 
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Now explain closures and you'll have everyone halfway there.
And of course the obligatory WAT video whenever Javascript weirdness is raised.
Wat[^]
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: Now explain closures and you'll have everyone halfway there.
You'll hear 40 million different definitions online about that. And most of them try to sound smart, but put simply it's a function within a function. People will try to tack on crap with scoping etc. to that definition when "explaining" it, but that's irrelevant to the core concept of it IMO.
Chris Maunder wrote: And of course the obligatory WAT video whenever Javascript weirdness is raised.
Ok, that dude is hilarious.
I have no idea why the object stuff in JavaScript turned out the way it did, but I can at least explain the 'wat' + 1 thing. The plus sign is used for string concatenation and arithmetic. The minus sign isn't. So in the former example, the interpreter assumes you're trying to concatenate using the most compatible types between the two operands, which is usually a string. The minus sign only only used for arithmetic and so it's NaN.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Falcon wrote: I have no idea why the object stuff in JavaScript turned out the way it did
.
Because Mozilla were insane enough to give a dev just 2 weeks to write a language. It's amazing it works at all.
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough."
Alan Kay.
|
|
|
|
|
You have a good point.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Javascript has become a powerful language. With this comes responsibility 
Press F1 for help or google it.
Greetings from Germany
|
|
|
|
|
Wisdom you speak. Wisdom you speak...
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
KarstenK wrote: avascript has become a powerful language.
And Hitler was a powerful dictator.
|
|
|
|
|
I am currently writing a road traffic simulator in javascript and both at work and in this project the one thing that makes javascript difficult is scope.
Basically the manner in which scope is implemented javascript makes it that much more difficult than it needs to be.
That said I have found that programming in javascritpt has made me a better developer because there are so many ways you can do things badly in javascript.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
modified 4-Dec-17 13:21pm.
|
|
|
|
|
I know what you mean. I do find the more I use JavaScript though the more I like it. It's just where the web is at, so getting can only help ya know.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Personally I find any issues that arise from scope can be resolved by the immutability of objects. I have no idea if this is good practice, but passing object references around or just having a global or high-up object with important stuff is how I like to do it.
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with you it is not such a bad language as people try to picture it.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks man. I totally agree. It's just different is all.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
And it is still safer than C or C++ - because these two have undefined behavior.
|
|
|
|
|
Yup. Don't get me wrong, C is still a favorite language of mine. Always will be, but it's harder to take down the entire OS in JavaScript.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah I see just the feature of undefined behavior (in case you are familiar with this term) is a bad feature of those languages IMHO.
|
|
|
|
|
I think you missed the point that it's fashionable to rip on JS because you "should" be using TypeScript.
#hipstercode
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."
- Benjamin Disraeli
|
|
|
|
|
Probably, but can't go and be a rebel and all and start using that now can we?
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
