Conversation

Notices

1. ∑ XahLee (xahlee@noagendasocial.com)'s status on Sunday, 14-Jan-2018 23:39:34 EST ∑ XahLee

   yesterday, i took half a day to convert #javascript object to es2015 Map, for much more proper code. Today, i had to revert it back, cuz apparently lots browser still can't do Map. So i got more angry at these js "compilers" namely #TypeScript etc really fake compilers.

   of course, the industry monkeys will say u should “polyfill”. fill them hindquarters. If u do, the import/require syntax is not even valid es2015 code. Dragging in complex fancy packagers. WTF is comp sci when u need it?

   1. lnxw48a1 (lnxw48a1@nu.federati.net)'s status on Sunday, 14-Jan-2018 23:47:13 EST lnxw48a1

      in reply to
      @xahlee One reason they do all those things is because the browsers' implementation support is so scattered. I'm not saying they are right, but the alternatives are either 1997-era "this site works best in Internet Explorer 4" buttons or limit functionality to #JavaScript subsets that are broadly supported.
      
      Or, you know, create sites that mostly work without relying on JS. Has the industry forgotten "progressive enhancement" again?
      1. ∑ XahLee (xahlee@noagendasocial.com)'s status on Sunday, 14-Jan-2018 23:49:40 EST ∑ XahLee

         in reply to

         @lnxw48a1 well, if typescript etc are real compilers, compile es2015 to es5. Things would work.

         am not sure what you mean?

         they don't do that because, to create real compiler, will make their their code, the compiler, much more complex. I think that's primary reason.

         1. ∑ XahLee (xahlee@noagendasocial.com)'s status on Sunday, 14-Jan-2018 23:50:14 EST ∑ XahLee

            in reply to

            @lnxw48a1 oh, and the result js es5 code won't be line by line similar to the es2015 one.