Modern JS evolution has been a disaster -- and I say that as someone who has pushed the boulder up the hill as much as anyone. We introduced the stages model after some of the worst, but still not on productive footing.
-
-
Replying to @slightlylate @RickByers and
Can you explain more why modern JS evolution has been a disaster? Decorators have gone ... poorly. I understand some bad actors (I've heard rumors possibly at Google) have at times torpedoed it with bad intent. But other than that ... I see a huge success. Where do you differ?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @AdamRackis @RickByers and
I see the full balance sheet (which you don't) of time invested for progress delivered. TC39 is bad value. Decorators. Promises. Cancellation. Classes. Intrinsic subclassing. Decorators. Many, many aspects of modules. All many, many years late...and we aren't even to types yet.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @slightlylate @RickByers and
Years late? By whose schedule? Those features had *many* competing visions, and achieving consensus was fucking hard. But most got done, with outstanding results. I'm most sympathetic to Promise cancellation. The ideologues surrounding anything Promise-related are the *worst*
1 reply 0 retweets 10 likes -
Replying to @AdamRackis @slightlylate and
It's unfortunate because this is all opinion, but I can't help but agree with Alex that the rate of change of JS to adopt completely needed features like Observables, Promise Cancellation, decorators, static/private/ class fields has been slow compared to other langs.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @mikesherov @AdamRackis and
And when you look at it, everyone on TC39 is trying their best and doing a great job, and we do have progress, but as a procedure wonk I can't help but blame the need for *complete consensus* for the pace of change in the language.
3 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @mikesherov @AdamRackis and
Don’t break the web, that is the number one goal. So it is not fair nor accurate to compare Web/JS with other platforms and languages. Few have as much responsibility and reach, and such any change needs to be thoroughly thought through.
2 replies 1 retweet 3 likes -
Replying to @Kevin_Kamimura @mikesherov and
Actually my #1 goal is to slow/stop the web's slide into irrelevance. Broken things can be fixed. Irrelevant things are rarely reserected!
4 replies 0 retweets 12 likes -
Replying to @RickByers @mikesherov and
Irrelevance for whom? Maybe not being able to use the web as a tool, to compete with native platforms makes it irrelevant for Google, but Google doesn’t speaks for everyone. Without engine diversity the web is no longer open, and that is its largest appeal over native.
2 replies 2 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @Kevin_Kamimura @RickByers and
Engine diversity absolutists need to describe what concrete benefits it provides that can't be achieved other ways in the medium-term (e.g., OSS forking, which has created huge divergence in the KHTML-lineage engines)
8 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
Sorry, not interested in throwing away all our hard work on a parallel Rust implementation of restyling to a slower C++ implementation just because Google wrote the latter.
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.