| > And after years of being too early at everything, the world had caught up to Doug. Have we though? Earlier, the article even has Douglas saying: > It turns out it, well, it’s a multi paradigm language, but the important paradigm that it had was functional. We still haven’t, as an industry, caught up to functional programming yet. We’re slowly approaching it, but there is a lot of value there that we haven’t picked up yet. I do love the very ending: Adam: What do you think is the XML of today? Douglas: I don’t know. It’s probably the JavaScript frameworks. They have gotten so big and so weird. People seem to love them. I don’t understand why. For a long time I was a big advocate of using some kind of JavaScript library, because the browsers were so unreliable, and the web interfaces were so incompetent, and make someone else do that work for you. But since then, the browsers have actually gotten pretty good. The web standards thing have finally worked, and the web API is stable pretty much. Some of it’s still pretty stupid, but it works and it’s reliable. And so, when I’m writing interactive stuff in browsers now, I’m just using plain old JavaScript. I’m not using any kind of library, and it’s working for me. And I think it could work for everybody. ------ Earlier in the interview where they were talking about how people behind XML and SOAP wanted complexity and were upset by the simplicity of JSON, I was thinking that this was resonating with me and how I feel about how complex web development has become with babel/webpack, transpiling, react/vue, etc. It feels like complexity for complexities sake. |