[sonnyblarney]

This is a very good point.

I wish lodashy functions, and a few other things (Time?), were just integrated into JS, in a thoughtful way ... as part of the standard lib. So they could all be done in native code in the engine.

[zachrose]

I’m sympathetic to this point of view, but I find lodash to be too huge of an API. Most of the collection methods can be done as a small _.reduce, and I find the many method names and subtle distinctions to add more trivia than they remove.

[untog]

The good news is that you can use lodash as an ES6 module, with any tree-shake capable bundler stripping out all the crap. Absolutely agree it's not optimal though.

[arusahni]

This is a pain point that the community wishes to address: https://github.com/tc39/proposal-javascript-standard-library

[austincheney]

I don’t see this going very far for historical reasons. This idea has been suggested for over a decade, but back then the focus of inspiration was jQuery. The false argument was that everybody was requesting it into pages anyways so it should be part of the language. Not only was this idea proposed on top of a faulty assumption but there were also performance penalties and hidden conformance defects.

These suggestions fall apart over time because they aren’t environment agnostic and lack objectivity. The subjectivity in question, “I want feature X”, usually doesn’t take alternate positions into consideration.

[Nimelrian]

The proposal explicitly states that everything in the standard library would not be tied to specific target environments:

Such a library would only cover features which would be useful in JavaScript in general, not things which are tied to the web platform. (A good heuristic: if something would make sense on a web browser but not in node or on embedded devices or robots, it probably isn't in scope.)

[_ZeD_]

Truth be said, jQuery can be seen obsolete because most of the functionality has been moved inside the DOM or the ajax "standard library" ...

[austincheney]

This certainly wasn't a popular opinion 10 years ago. The history lesson here is that popular is a subjective quality that does not provide objective benefits, which is clear in a future time.

[_ZeD_]

Well, as I said you could think that is jQuery "has been added" to the javascript expected api. Some functions calls has been renamed, others have been superseded, but the "vanillajs" of 201x is pretty different from the 199x - and more similar to the jQuery usage.

jQuery rise (but also underscore and others "low level libs) was interwined with the need of common functionalities, such as the DOM manipolation and the ajax calls. I still remember when all you could use was the .innerHTML property and the "new" DOM level 1 api [ https://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-DOM-Level-1-19981001/ ]. jQuery selectors were so game-changing that the "new" DOM api were basically copied.

I understand how incredibly difficult is to find a good balance between an "anemic" stdlib (like the barely sufficient c stdlib) to the giant ones (like java has had), moreso that a bad/poorly secured function should still be mantained "forever" for backward compatibility.

Still I think that this movement should go forward to finally have some form of "batteries included"

[kristiandupont]

I guess I disagree as I much prefer Ramdas style over Lodash.. Is your concern about performance? Because I don't think it would be a massive improvement over JS code.