|
|
|
|
|
by rdtsc
5027 days ago
|
|
> There's nothing wrong with JavaScript. "Beautiful if you it" know also means "this is the only thing I know and the only thing that is viable so I might as well like it". Was it hailed as a beautiful language when it came out? Why not? I don't remember accolades written about it. Oh because it is the only thing that runs on the browser. Those two things are orthogonal and one doesn't follow from the other no matter how much we try to make it that way. > Seriously? One code-base with a few cross-device tweaks is, in my opinion, infinitely better than n native apps. Users don't care how many languages or how many tweaks your product code has. If it is slow to render, it flickers, if it takes forever to do its job, it is shit and it gets thrown away, regardless if it is written in Backbone.js or Ember.js, Haskell, or COBOL. It doesn't matter. That was the point. |
|
Short-sightedness? Confusion between JS and the DOM API? I don't see why you're bringing up "when it came out" either.
> "Beautiful if you know it" know also means "this is the only thing I know"
I don't see how that follows either.
I said that because many developers have a prejudiced impression of JS from the ie/netscape/image rollover days when it was hastily dismissed as a toy. If you spend some time looking at it seriously you can appreciate just how good "the good parts" are.