Hacker News Reader

Something this article glosses over is that JavaScript achieved all the benefits of ES6, ES7, gradual typing, etc, without breaking backwards compatibility. I can still pull in a library written 10 years ago alongside my fancy new async/await code.

Perhaps this can be partly credited to JS's decision to go with a more minimal standard library, meaning it didn't end up with the Python 2/3 situation as standards evolved.

View on HN

I can do the same with a Python program written 8 years ago given that Python 3.0 was released in December 2008.

I don't think that it's Python's large standard library that was the issue since that was immediately compatible with Python 3, rather it was the large ecosystem (in fact particularly a small number of popular packages) which held things back by not porting soon enough.

The biggest issue was Python standardizing on Unicode by default in Python 3 and breaking backward compatibility with a lot of (bad) string handling code the hard way by also forcing developers to unlearn a lot of old habits.

JS won't experience a directly similar thing because it started with default Unicode strings support (because it had to, and also because JS is slightly younger than Python and had that advantage).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com