hi all , any coders here?
-
- Pro Player
- Posts: 10282
- Joined: Jun 6, 2015
- Location: Paris
- GameRanger ID: 5529322
Re: hi all , any coders here?
Yeah but does the joke come from something?
LoOk_tOm wrote:I have something in particular against Kaisar (GERMANY NOOB mercenary LAMME FOREVER) And the other people (noobs) like suck kaiser ... just this ..
Re: hi all , any coders here?
Well yeah JS is a piece of shit
-
- Ninja
- Posts: 14364
- Joined: Mar 26, 2015
Re: hi all , any coders here?
hey ye what's up it's me sircallencoder i can code anything and everything java you'll ever need or want im proficient
-
- Pro Player
- Posts: 10282
- Joined: Jun 6, 2015
- Location: Paris
- GameRanger ID: 5529322
Re: hi all , any coders here?
Goodspeed wrote:Well yeah JS is a piece of shit
Lol why
I mean I also think it's really shit. But what makes you think it is?
LoOk_tOm wrote:I have something in particular against Kaisar (GERMANY NOOB mercenary LAMME FOREVER) And the other people (noobs) like suck kaiser ... just this ..
Re: hi all , any coders here?
Honestly I wouldn't say it's a piece of shit but sure it has some issues, like most languages.Kaiserklein wrote:Goodspeed wrote:Well yeah JS is a piece of shit
Lol why
I mean I also think it's really shit. But what makes you think it is?
The fact that it's not strongly typed bothers me. Subjective, of course. It seems the languages that are interpreted instead of compiled (JS, PHP, Python, ...) saw it as a feature to be weakly typed, but the more I've worked with both the more I prefer strongly typed languages. I think these languages made a mistake not implementing static typing, which actually both PHP and Python are doing in recent versions. I don't know about JS. It's just more comfortable to know what object type you are working with instead of guessing. I think strongly typed languages encourage good code, as well.
That it's not object-oriented, at least not in the way that Java or C# are, is also a flaw in my eyes. Yes it has OOP features, or it can do at least, but it's very apparent that JS itself is not designed to be an OO language.
Plus it has some issues with consistency, mostly due to the way it developed throughout the years so that's not necessarily a flaw of the language.
-
- Pro Player
- Posts: 10282
- Joined: Jun 6, 2015
- Location: Paris
- GameRanger ID: 5529322
Re: hi all , any coders here?
Ah yeah, I was also annoyed by that types thing. And it's true that it incites you to not pay attention when you play around with the variables, and mix their types. It's not really clean coding.
But idk, even if it's annoying to code I think in the end it does the job, and covers a lot of purposes.
But idk, even if it's annoying to code I think in the end it does the job, and covers a lot of purposes.
LoOk_tOm wrote:I have something in particular against Kaisar (GERMANY NOOB mercenary LAMME FOREVER) And the other people (noobs) like suck kaiser ... just this ..
Re: hi all , any coders here?
Can't expect all languages to be like Java masterrace.
Pay more attention to detail.
Re: hi all , any coders here?
Goodspeed wrote:The fact that it's not strongly typed bothers me. Subjective, of course. It seems the languages that are interpreted instead of compiled (JS, PHP, Python, ...) saw it as a feature to be weakly typed, but the more I've worked with both the more I prefer strongly typed languages. I think these languages made a mistake not implementing static typing, which actually both PHP and Python are doing in recent versions. I don't know about JS. It's just more comfortable to know what object type you are working with instead of guessing. I think strongly typed languages encourage good code, as well.
It didn't need to be strongly typed because initially JS was made to be a scripting, dynamic OOP language used by browsers alone. There was no point in having a strongly typed language for that, when the purpose of the language was to manipulate strings, numbers, functions, objects, etc. There was no use for an integer type back then. Things changed a lot since 1995. Hence the complaints.
I wouldn't call JS an interpreted language anymore. In fact, this is not even part of the language specification, it's part of language implementation. And JS hasn't been a strictly interpreted language since google made the V8 engine. After that, pretty much every major implementation has been JIT compilation.
Here, educate yourself:
Language spec wrote:ECMAScript is an object-oriented programming language for performing computations and manipulating computational objects within a host environment. ECMAScript as defined here is not intended to be computationally self-sufficient; indeed, there are no provisions in this specification for input of external data or output of computed results. Instead, it is expected that the computational environment of an ECMAScript program will provide not only the objects and other facilities described in this specification but also certain environment-specific objects, whose description and behaviour are beyond the scope of this specification except to indicate that they may provide certain properties that can be accessed and certain functions that can be called from an ECMAScript program.
ECMAScript was originally designed to be used as a scripting language, but has become widely used as a general purpose programming language. A scripting language is a programming language that is used to manipulate, customize, and automate the facilities of an existing system. In such systems, useful functionality is already available through a user interface, and the scripting language is a mechanism for exposing that functionality to program control. In this way, the existing system is said to provide a host environment of objects and facilities, which completes the capabilities of the scripting language. A scripting language is intended for use by both professional and non-professional programmers.
ECMAScript was originally designed to be a Web scripting language, providing a mechanism to enliven Web pages in browsers and to perform server computation as part of a Web-based client-server architecture. ECMAScript is now used to provide core scripting capabilities for a variety of host environments. Therefore the core language is specified in this document apart from any particular host environment.
ECMAScript usage has moved beyond simple scripting and it is now used for the full spectrum of programming tasks in many different environments and scales. As the usage of ECMAScript has expanded, so has the features and facilities it provides. ECMAScript is now a fully featured general propose programming language.
Some of the facilities of ECMAScript are similar to those used in other programming languages; in particular C, Java™, Self, and Scheme as described in:
ISO/IEC 9899:1996, Programming Languages – C.
Gosling, James, Bill Joy and Guy Steele. The Java™ Language Specification. Addison Wesley Publishing Co., 1996.
Ungar, David, and Smith, Randall B. Self: The Power of Simplicity. OOPSLA '87 Conference Proceedings, pp. 227–241, Orlando, FL, October 1987.
IEEE Standard for the Scheme Programming Language. IEEE Std 1178-1990.
That it's not object-oriented, at least not in the way that Java or C# are, is also a flaw in my eyes. Yes it has OOP features, or it can do at least, but it's very apparent that JS itself is not designed to be an OO language.
But that's not necessarily a bad thing. Some would say, if it were designed to be strictly OOP, it would have been a bad choice. Considering that right now functional programming is the dominant paradigm, JS being OOP wouldn't do it many favours. Even though until Ecmascript 6, it lacked class-based inheritance like other classical OOP languages, it was possible to have polymorphism using prototype-based inheritance.
After ES6, JS has native classes, which makes using inheritance more explicit and readable (even though, under the hood, it's still prototypes).
Plus it has some issues with consistency, mostly due to the way it developed throughout the years so that's not necessarily a flaw of the language.
I hope you're not talking about those meme operations, like []+{} or 1+"1". People who peddle this bs are not very familiar with implicit type conversions, so they just use these memes to vent their frustrations, just because they didn't get much far in their attempt to learn it.
Re: hi all , any coders here?
At this point of time, js does almost everything— Cross Platform Mobile Apps, Cross Platform Desktop Apps, WebD and so many libraries, coding in js has been very fruitful. Also, with Google is promoting Progressive Web Apps (again js) and Facebook developing React, looks like js will be top language for coming 4-5 years.
-
- Ninja
- Posts: 14364
- Joined: Mar 26, 2015
Re: hi all , any coders here?
My experience with js has been that it can do almost anything but do none of it very well.
Re: hi all , any coders here?
There is a mantra in programming: use the right tool for the right task. Same with languages. There's no perfect tool for every task. For example, almost nobody would do web development in C++ or C.
And nobody would write a bootloader in JS or Java. For some domains of problems you need low-level access and performance, for others you need high-level abstraction, etc.
And nobody would write a bootloader in JS or Java. For some domains of problems you need low-level access and performance, for others you need high-level abstraction, etc.
-
- Ninja
- Posts: 14364
- Joined: Mar 26, 2015
Re: hi all , any coders here?
This is exactly right. However, I like to write my bootloaders strictly in Java as to challenge myself and hone my programming skills. It's a rewarding pastime!
Re: hi all , any coders here?
Noob spotted! I am sure he didn't know bootloaders before posting.
-
- Ninja
- Posts: 14364
- Joined: Mar 26, 2015
Re: hi all , any coders here?
Ashvin wrote:Noob spotted! I am sure he didn't know bootloaders before posting.
if {
sarcasm = went over head ;
then
type.on.page."kidding" ;}
"kidding"
Re: hi all , any coders here?
Gendarme wrote:What do you mean by "didn't"?
I assumed he'd Google for it after reading my post xD
Re: hi all , any coders here?
I'm aware of how JS started, and that static typing may not have been preferable at the time. But the history of the language is not relevant to any opinions I have about its current form. Anyway I think it's always good to make a language strongly typed no matter its purpose, even if only for readability.Dolan wrote:It didn't need to be strongly typed because initially JS was made to be a scripting, dynamic OOP language used by browsers alone. There was no point in having a strongly typed language for that, when the purpose of the language was to manipulate strings, numbers, functions, objects, etc. There was no use for an integer type back then. Things changed a lot since 1995. Hence the complaints.
I wouldn't call JS an interpreted language anymore. In fact, this is not even part of the language specification, it's part of language implementation. And JS hasn't been a strictly interpreted language since google made the V8 engine. After that, pretty much every major implementation has been JIT compilation.
I know it's not necessarily a bad thing. I just don't like it. I have always preferred languages that are OO at the core because the way they work is intuitive to me. Personal preference you might say.But that's not necessarily a bad thing. Some would say, if it were designed to be strictly OOP, it would have been a bad choice. Considering that right now functional programming is the dominant paradigm, JS being OOP wouldn't do it many favours. Even though until Ecmascript 6, it lacked class-based inheritance like other classical OOP languages, it was possible to have polymorphism using prototype-based inheritance.
After ES6, JS has native classes, which makes using inheritance more explicit and readable (even though, under the hood, it's still prototypes).
Even though JS is a functional language, you often see programmers use it as an OO language because they prefer the OO way of doing things. I would, too. The result is often hard to read.
I'm not a fan of the concept of implicit type conversions unless they are in compiled languages where it doesn't really affect readability, but no that's not what I'm talking about. JS can be confusing that way but it's consistent as far as I know.I hope you're not talking about those meme operations, like []+{} or 1+"1". People who peddle this bs are not very familiar with implicit type conversions, so they just use these memes to vent their frustrations, just because they didn't get much far in their attempt to learn it.
I can't think of any specific examples because the last time I worked with JS is a while ago, but mostly it's inconsistencies in third party libraries or even the core. Also iirc the way it does async was confusing to me. Tbh, I think I'm just spoiled by the .NET framework.
I don't know shit, really, but I know why I disliked working with JS compared to .NET and Python. That's all this is. I don't think it's a piece of shit, I was joking. I didn't want to get into it, but people asked... Perhaps a couple more years and I would've loved the language, though I doubt it. .NET does have a way of ruining every other language for a person, based on my own experience and other programmers I've talked to. So I guess stay away from it
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests