|
|
|
|
|
|
by bradscarleton
3554 days ago
|
|
|
> Complex in the sense that they were originally thrown together and the results of the program might best be described as "stochastic output", yeah I can agree with that. Absolutely, they are complex because of poor initial designs, and actually even more complex now due to all the efforts to maintain backwards compatibility... > Sure, but it sure seems funny that "high quality code" is nearly non-existent in PHP and javascript world ... jQuery is an incredibly well engineered library by John Resig. I think that jQuery was one of the big technological leaps forward that led to the proliferation of web applications. For a long time, people thought that cross browser JS inconsistencies and confusing API standards meant that you couldn't build interactive UI applications in the browser. And now they are ubiquitous. So I guess it depends on your definition of "high quality code". I don't think quality code is about some arbitrary coding aesthetic. It's about results, and it's about what your code does, and how it creates value. |
|
|
Moving the goal posts so that the definition of 'high quality' is basically code that compiles and runs as long as it 'creates value'? What about when you have to change it later? What about if it has to be really fast?
People who think that Javascript and PHP are crappy languages aren't just comparing these languages to 'arbitrary coding aesthetics'.