You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments
191 points

I’ve honestly never understood why someone at Google or Mozilla hasn’t decided to write a JavaScript Standard Library.

I’m not opposed to NPM, because dumb shit like this happens everywhere. If such a package is used millions of times a day, perhaps it would make sense to standardise it and have it as part of the fucking browser or node runtime…

permalink
report
reply
50 points

I’ve honestly never understood why someone at Google or Mozilla hasn’t decided to write a JavaScript Standard Library.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

This picture honestly looks more like C++ than JS, and before you yell at me, JS doesn’t have any standards let alone competing standards so ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

JS doesn’t have any standards

ECMAScript would like to have a word with you.

If however by “doesn’t have any standards” you meant it’s willing to sink to new low grounds every day, you would be correct.

permalink
report
parent
reply
44 points
*

someone at Google or Mozilla hasn’t decided to write a JavaScript Standard Library.

Core APIs (including data types like strings, collection types like Map, Set, and arrays), Browser, and DOM APIs are pretty good these days. Much better than they used to be, with more features and consistent behaviour across all major browsers. It’s uncommon to need browser-specific hacks for those any more, except sometimes in Safari which acts weird at times.

The main issue is server-side, and neither Google nor Mozilla have a big interest in server side JS. Google mostly uses Python and Java for their server-side code, and Mozilla mostly uses Rust.

Having said that, there’s definitely some improvements that could be made in client-side JS too.

permalink
report
parent
reply
28 points

There’s a js runtime called bun that is 90-something% feature equivalent to node and also has built in alternatives to many packages like express and bcrypt. I haven’t used it myself so I can’t speak to its quality but it’s always nice to see a little competition

permalink
report
parent
reply
19 points

So is Deno! You can easily import npm: and node: packages and run typescript without transpiling. With Bun and Deno there’s no reason to use Node tbh.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

For starting new projects i absolut agree. At work we have a legacy react app that just will not run on bun and for deno we would probably have to rewrite some stuff.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

node now supports stripping types, which is good enough for one-off TS snippet.
(available only in nightly for now)

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Bun is used by us in production, in dev, everywhere. It’s great. We don’t even use (p)npm to build js packages on our docker images for apps anymore.

permalink
report
parent
reply
27 points

That’s basically how Javascript gets extended. I put off learning jQuery for so long that all the features I’d want are now standard.

permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points

Vanilla JS is pretty good on the client side, but leaves a lot to be desired on the server side in Node.js, even if you include the standard Node.js modules.

For example, there’s no built-in way to connect to a database of any sort, nor is there a way to easily create a basic HTTP REST API - the built in HTTP module is just raw HTTP, with no URL routing, no way to automatically JSON encode responses, no standardized error handling, no middleware layer, etc.

This means that practically every Node.js app imports third-party modules, and they vary wildly in quality. Some are fantastic, some are okay, and some are absolutely horrible yet somehow get millions of downloads per week.

permalink
report
parent
reply
26 points

I wish they would replace JavaScript with something that was made for what it’s used for. JavaScript should have died years ago.

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

I’m still waiting for webassembly to take off

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

Sometimes it’s hard to detach It, specially dealing with web dev.

The browser expects JS, since JS was made for the browser, so you make a front in JS. But now you need a back, and hey, you already have all models and repos in JS, might as well make the back with JS.

It’s a vicious cycle. Honestly, JS is fine for either if you are component enough (ie. not using stuff like “is-number”), don’t get the hate on It.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

No, JS is for scripts, it should have never been a whole framework for a frontend. But we can’t get away from it now, because it’s the only thing we have for browsers.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

Let’s use Flash!

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Actionscript, my beloved

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

Support for int64s out of the box and without jumping through hoops would be nice.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

core-js is exactly that, but it focuses on implementing baseline features that can be polyfilled.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Programmer Humor

!programmer_humor@programming.dev

Create post

Welcome to Programmer Humor!

This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!

For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.

Rules

  • Keep content in english
  • No advertisements
  • Posts must be related to programming or programmer topics

Community stats

  • 3.5K

    Monthly active users

  • 809

    Posts

  • 12K

    Comments