Hacker News Reader

Comment by BiteCode_dev | Hacker News Reader

Yes, but when "the good parts" came out, half of this list was already true.

There is a reason we ignore a good chunk of the language to be productive with it.

Not just half of it, the central part of it. Javascript did not grow into something huge, it started that way. A prototype based wannabe Java that accidentally (?) shipped with a full scheme included alongside. The latter of which remained mostly dormant until "the good parts" came along and put them into the (deserved) spotlight, relegating the prototype stuff from idiomatic to niche, for when you are doing something particularly clever. It's a unique mess that has lead to something no purer language could dream of.

It would have worked out fine if we managed to lose the prototypes without ramming classes into the language and baiting all the Java dickheads over to the web ecosystem.

Javascript breathed it's last breath the moment someone saw NestJS and said "wow that's a good idea".

> Javascript breathed it's last breath the moment someone saw NestJS and said "wow that's a good idea".

I still don’t understand how someone looked at Spring and thought “Wow, that’s pretty good! I’ll bring it to platform that has worse performance than Java, to language that was designed with dynamicity in mind and has no native static typing”.

Asking out of curiosity. What's your rationale behind Spring is slower? Worked on couple of greenfield and existing Spring Boot applications and we never had any performance issues caused by Spring. Spring has its own bad parts but calling that it has worse performance than Java is not one of them. Its not even a valid comparison. Java is crazy fast for a VM based runtime AFAIK.

Java is faster than Node.

You take slow framework, like Spring, and put it on slower runtime (Node) so you get double slow with less benefits.

> shipped with a full scheme included alongside

Sorry, what?

https://journal.stuffwithstuff.com/2013/07/18/javascript-isn...

The "scheme inside" might be missing the mark in any number of features, but in the end the resulting effect it had have been profoundly, well, effective. It's there.

People have been going all SICP (Abelson/Sussman) on JS ever since Crockford exposed the hidden scheme (or hidden not-scheme-at-all, if you insist) and moved JS far, far away from the humble prototype OOP it started as. And that had little to do with any language extensions that had been creeping in very slowly given the lowest common denominator nature of web development, and everything with the funky scope binding tricks that generations of programmers had been taught in the memorable "let's make Scheme OOP" drills of SICP and the MIT course (that so many other universities based their teaching on)

>There is a reason we ignore a good chunk of the language to be productive with it.

The same can be said for most languages, even assembly language, and especially so for C++.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com