But why would Elm be any different? (I understand that it is, but there's no rational reason I can see that this has happened to JS and not other languages, esp things that compile to JS where the anemic std lib argument doesn't even really apply)
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @JAH2488
That's what's so interesting/frustrating here. Why did it happen to JS but nowhere else? JS didn't always have this culture. What changed? Why hasn't every popular language since NPM took off had the same effect?
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @JAH2488
I mean I could see that argument, but that's not where we are now. In the time when I was writing a lot more JS most of what you saw were things like moment.js and underscore, which are reasonable sizes for that sort of library
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
From a technical point of view we should have seen the opposite trend. Back then you were shipping all the functions you never called unless you used the closure compiler which required additional changes to the code. Today with tree shaking it's no problem to have big libs
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
My take on this is that, since writing JS has been error prone for a long time (still is), a "unix" philosophy of doing only one thing well helped with reducing complexity of single packages. Less complexity leads to less room for error.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Miss Dada 🏳️⚧️ Retweeted Miss Dada 🏳️⚧️
Miss Dada 🏳️⚧️ added,
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.