I'm happy for the person who wrote this because they've found a nice impedance match between themselves and Javascript. But I could have written almost the same article and substituted Google Go for Javascript (with some modifications).
The reality of much programming is that once you've got your set of tools, and a good familiarity with a language which helps you solve problems you're happy. You're happy because you're getting stuff done in a manner that you find elegant, or easy.
For example, I really like Go because it's C-like, with an OO paradigm that I'm comfortable with, lightweight 'processes', and neat communication. Also, builds and tests really, really fast. But you probably don't learn much more from me saying that other than "John likes Google Go because he's comfortable with it".
Well, given that I've seen 7-15 minute build times for 180,000 lines of code in a popular JVM language ... what I wouldn't give for Go-like build / test iteration times in that language.
I think there's some value in your list of things that you like about Go. It gives others an idea of what they might be missing out on. (And for me with my work on Open Dylan, it gives me a nice target to aim for.)
Sorry for off topic, but do you have any recommended resources for learning Go? I've been curious for a while and I think I'd like to finally get my hands dirty with it.
I spent the weekend playing with ClojureScript One, and this line really stood out for me:
"Moreover, JS is really fast to write and test. Write – save – refresh[2]; it’s an absurdly fast dev cycle that lets me iterate on questionable portions of the code much faster than any environment I’ve worked in."
With ClojureScript and Emacs, this cycle is replaced with "write - C-x C-e" (For the unfamiliar, Ctrl-x Ctrl-e sends the Lisp form immediately before the cursor to the compiler, and sends the resulting JavaScript to the browser for execution. It lets you evaluate bits of code directly from your editing buffer. It's the classic Lisp and Emacs set up and it's fantastic.)
Is there no browser-connected REPL for regular-ole JavaScript? I don't know the details of the ClojureScript implementation, but I would imagine you could hack it up to use plain JS. I'm sure I sound like a smug Lisp weenie, but actually I'm just hoping that this does exist in case I ever have to use regular JS.
It works really, really well. In fact, it's using exactly the same protocol and Emacs libraries that ClojureScript uses (SLIME). It's really neat to see SLIME still being used today for such cool and practical things.
I rely on LiveReload (http://livereload.com/) for my day-to-day web dev work. Point it at a repo folder and a browser window, and any time any files are changed in the repo it'll intelligently update the browser window (full page refresh for HTML/JS changes, partial refresh for CSS-only changes). It can also be configured to auto-compile SASS/LESS/CoffeeScript/etc, and/or execute arbitrary shell commands on save. The Mac version costs $10 (haven't tried the Windows port yet), but it's unbelievably fantastic.
I have been hacking on ClojureScript recently as well (spent the weekend playing with ClojureScript One also!), but I am not an Emacs user (I use Vim). Can you explain the part about sending JavaScript to the browser without refresh from a normal repl (lein repl)? I see this advertised by ClojureScript but not an explanation as to how it works (probably assuming experienced lispers). My method for working has been save, ctrl+tab to browser, ctrl+f5 to refresh.
"Moreover, JS is really fast to write and test. Write – save – refresh[2]; it’s an absurdly fast dev cycle that lets me iterate on questionable portions of the code much faster than any environment I’ve worked in."
That is just full of crap. What he forgets to mention is that you have to fix a good deal of the bugs at runtime(spending time in debugger), that would otherwise be picked up by a compiler and also figuring out the workarounds on the shitty toolchain.
"We now send hundreds of kb’s of minified Javascript to the client, and we expect all of it to run smoothly."
Again, these are inherent deficiencies of the toolchain, where you have to compress the textual code, instead of using byte-code.
And on top of that we have Coffee Script, LESS, SASS, Jade and God knows what to try to compensate for the amount of legacy, instead of just rebuild proper framework from the start, right and for all.
And on top of that we have Coffee Script, LESS, SASS, Jade and God knows what to try to compensate for the amount of legacy, instead of just rebuild proper framework from the start, right and for all.
But it's not just a case of rebuilding a proper framework, the "internet" is just too big to scrap everything that is already there... we'd end up with this real mixture of technologies floating around, browsers become more bloated to support both set of technologies, we end up with those "Best Viewed in..." gif's all over the place again AND we would never be able to fully move onto that tech set for a long long time... how long before HTML5/CSS3 become the defacto standard for every new project you work on? I'm currently working on a site which needs to work with Javascript off AND support IE6 (both of which just sucks balls).
I am a bit biased. I love working with JavaScript (I am a C# developer btw) and I have loved seeing it evolve, how much it can do, how well it can do it and how GOOD javascript code makes it very easy and straight forward to work with... on the flip side of that I have seen far too many rubbish scripts from non-programmers!
What he forgets to mention is that you have to fix a good deal of the bugs at runtime(spending time in debugger), that would otherwise be picked up by a compiler and also figuring out the workarounds on the shitty toolchain
I think that this is a subjective position, some people find that the dev cycle is faster, in some cases fast enough to offset the debugging and yet others don't experience the issue to the degree that it is highlighted. I see this position from a good deal of people that prefer static languages and for me personally it is just not a huge issue. I just don't run into the issue that static languages are supposed to save me from enough to forgo the rapid development of languages such as JavaScript and Lisp. I think this issue is bore more out of how each of us develops and thinks, rather than some correctness of one over the other.
"So in a strange way, I’m happy that the messy Javascript I sometimes write tend to not last long. By nature, front-end code has a short shelf life: pages are redesigned, A/B tested and overhauled in short succession, and my painstakingly elegant carousel implementation may not have a place in the new design."
And this is why I'm scared of writing anything in node.js.
Just getting modules to work in node seemed less intuitive than C includes. Despite all the hype it felt like a step backwards, and a tool to be used only when its strengths (events/streaming) really demanded it.
I am happy to not be a front-end developer in most of my work :)
Just getting modules to work in node seemed less intuitive than C includes. Despite all the hype it felt like a step backwards, and a tool to be used only when its strengths (events/streaming) really demanded it.
Node modules are actually well thought out. They resolve circular dependency, and all code inside a module is confined to that namespace.
Whatever tool you take - if you start comparing with another tool that you already use, it's going to be strange and less intuitive. It's almost human nature to gravitate towards familiar things. If that's your own goal, then it's fine. But - to discount something just because it's not familiar to the way you do things is not exactly fair.
The problem with client-side Javascript code is largely a result of the horrible DOM. Once you are free of that server side Javascript looks a lot more doable.
The fact that front-end javascript often changes shouldn't be a reason to avoid it as a server side language. There might be other reasons why you'd prefer something else on the server, but I don't see any connection between the two, other than they use the same language. In most projects, there's a pretty clear separation between the front-end and server.
> Moreover, JS is really fast to write and test. Write – save – refresh; it’s an absurdly fast dev cycle that lets me iterate on questionable portions of the code much faster than any environment I’ve worked in.
I'm planning on looking into headless testing to eliminate the whole icky business of switching to the browser and hitting refresh. I find this much more of a drag than rerunning server side tests in a terminal.
This really only applies if you do 'web scripting', applying some dynamic stuff or AJAX speedups to web pages. Once you start building an actual application (say, Gmail sized), the lack of modules, types, versioning, etc. really starts to hurt. Yes, you can implement all of this with either javsacript libraries or server side tools, but that way you lose a lot of the advantages he mentions.
As a side note, does anyone have any good examples of Javascript being used as a scripting language? I keep meaning to learn Javascript, but I don't do any web programming, and it always seems like I'd have to learn a lot of DOM and other browser-specific callouts to do anything with it.
I keep thinking that Javascript would work okay for things that I'd normally try Lua for (or Guile, if I'm feeling ornery), but I've never seen anyone actually doing it. The existing implementations all seem very heavy-weight.
A lot of his points seem more to do with his like of and familiarity with the environment, rather than praise of the language. I too enjoy mucking around in node but sometimes get frustrated with the many workarounds one needs to juggle to get simple things done. There's some inspiring (and fun) things going on in the language though which keeps it exciting.
One of the greatest strengths of the language when used for client-side code is that it largely enforces open source by virtue of the architecture. There's a lot of minified and obfuscated code out there, but even that can be deconstructed, and the amount of clear and well-documented code out there pretty much ensures that you can find tips to solve any problem you have, if not an open source library to handle it for you. Add the network effect from all the people using the language, and the resulting wealth of discussions widely available on its every aspect, and it's difficult to beat.
Is there an equivalent for name-dropping that would describe this kind of article? It seems to be clever and up to date but it is in fact empty and condescending. Removed the string of buzzwords, what you get is personal opinions of very slim interest.
I don't think we should attack the writer for writing up his opinion and posting it on the Internet. That's what blogging is if you're not some great thinker like pg or Joel Spolsky. Somebody here thought it was worth discussing, no less.
[+] [-] jgrahamc|14 years ago|reply
The reality of much programming is that once you've got your set of tools, and a good familiarity with a language which helps you solve problems you're happy. You're happy because you're getting stuff done in a manner that you find elegant, or easy.
For example, I really like Go because it's C-like, with an OO paradigm that I'm comfortable with, lightweight 'processes', and neat communication. Also, builds and tests really, really fast. But you probably don't learn much more from me saying that other than "John likes Google Go because he's comfortable with it".
[+] [-] BruceM|14 years ago|reply
I think there's some value in your list of things that you like about Go. It gives others an idea of what they might be missing out on. (And for me with my work on Open Dylan, it gives me a nice target to aim for.)
[+] [-] RegEx|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] spacemanaki|14 years ago|reply
"Moreover, JS is really fast to write and test. Write – save – refresh[2]; it’s an absurdly fast dev cycle that lets me iterate on questionable portions of the code much faster than any environment I’ve worked in."
With ClojureScript and Emacs, this cycle is replaced with "write - C-x C-e" (For the unfamiliar, Ctrl-x Ctrl-e sends the Lisp form immediately before the cursor to the compiler, and sends the resulting JavaScript to the browser for execution. It lets you evaluate bits of code directly from your editing buffer. It's the classic Lisp and Emacs set up and it's fantastic.)
Is there no browser-connected REPL for regular-ole JavaScript? I don't know the details of the ClojureScript implementation, but I would imagine you could hack it up to use plain JS. I'm sure I sound like a smug Lisp weenie, but actually I'm just hoping that this does exist in case I ever have to use regular JS.
edit I found something call mozrepl but this seems specific to Firefox. https://github.com/bard/mozrepl/wiki/Emacs-integration
[+] [-] jlongster|14 years ago|reply
It works really, really well. In fact, it's using exactly the same protocol and Emacs libraries that ClojureScript uses (SLIME). It's really neat to see SLIME still being used today for such cool and practical things.
[+] [-] lazerwalker|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MatthewPhillips|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kombine|14 years ago|reply
That is just full of crap. What he forgets to mention is that you have to fix a good deal of the bugs at runtime(spending time in debugger), that would otherwise be picked up by a compiler and also figuring out the workarounds on the shitty toolchain.
"We now send hundreds of kb’s of minified Javascript to the client, and we expect all of it to run smoothly."
Again, these are inherent deficiencies of the toolchain, where you have to compress the textual code, instead of using byte-code.
And on top of that we have Coffee Script, LESS, SASS, Jade and God knows what to try to compensate for the amount of legacy, instead of just rebuild proper framework from the start, right and for all.
[+] [-] kamjam|14 years ago|reply
But it's not just a case of rebuilding a proper framework, the "internet" is just too big to scrap everything that is already there... we'd end up with this real mixture of technologies floating around, browsers become more bloated to support both set of technologies, we end up with those "Best Viewed in..." gif's all over the place again AND we would never be able to fully move onto that tech set for a long long time... how long before HTML5/CSS3 become the defacto standard for every new project you work on? I'm currently working on a site which needs to work with Javascript off AND support IE6 (both of which just sucks balls).
I am a bit biased. I love working with JavaScript (I am a C# developer btw) and I have loved seeing it evolve, how much it can do, how well it can do it and how GOOD javascript code makes it very easy and straight forward to work with... on the flip side of that I have seen far too many rubbish scripts from non-programmers!
[+] [-] kls|14 years ago|reply
I think that this is a subjective position, some people find that the dev cycle is faster, in some cases fast enough to offset the debugging and yet others don't experience the issue to the degree that it is highlighted. I see this position from a good deal of people that prefer static languages and for me personally it is just not a huge issue. I just don't run into the issue that static languages are supposed to save me from enough to forgo the rapid development of languages such as JavaScript and Lisp. I think this issue is bore more out of how each of us develops and thinks, rather than some correctness of one over the other.
[+] [-] davedx|14 years ago|reply
And this is why I'm scared of writing anything in node.js.
Just getting modules to work in node seemed less intuitive than C includes. Despite all the hype it felt like a step backwards, and a tool to be used only when its strengths (events/streaming) really demanded it.
I am happy to not be a front-end developer in most of my work :)
[+] [-] karterk|14 years ago|reply
Node modules are actually well thought out. They resolve circular dependency, and all code inside a module is confined to that namespace.
Whatever tool you take - if you start comparing with another tool that you already use, it's going to be strange and less intuitive. It's almost human nature to gravitate towards familiar things. If that's your own goal, then it's fine. But - to discount something just because it's not familiar to the way you do things is not exactly fair.
[+] [-] bofussing|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] secoif|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] viscanti|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] themanr|14 years ago|reply
I'm planning on looking into headless testing to eliminate the whole icky business of switching to the browser and hitting refresh. I find this much more of a drag than rerunning server side tests in a terminal.
[+] [-] MatthewPhillips|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hesselink|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kombine|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] oddthink|14 years ago|reply
I keep thinking that Javascript would work okay for things that I'd normally try Lua for (or Guile, if I'm feeling ornery), but I've never seen anyone actually doing it. The existing implementations all seem very heavy-weight.
[+] [-] karterk|14 years ago|reply
http://www.nodejs-news.com/NodeConf/browserling-on-Building-...
[+] [-] philbo|14 years ago|reply
https://github.com/philbooth/lepr-js/blob/master/precommit.j...
[+] [-] omaranto|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] minikomi|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Sembiance|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ngokevin|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] WiseWeasel|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] binarycheese|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gbog|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] steve-howard|14 years ago|reply