[gruseom]

Yes indeed. I don't bother with 'this' at all, except when forced to by some interface. I don't even bother to define objects most of the time, just top level functions that can easily be called from a REPL. That simple subset of JS is powerful enough to go a long way — long enough that I'm unconvinced one needs anything else, unless one believes one does — and programming this way feels liberating, like riding a bicycle instead of pushing a car.

[lopatin]

Are you able to write large applications like this without things getting too messy? I'm interested because I usually write JavaScript in the complete opposite way than you just described (strictly OOP, almost like I'm writing Java). This also means that I use 'this' quite a lot. Do you come from a functional programming background? What do you think about languages like clojurescript?

[gruseom]

My main work is on a complex application, but we write it in Parenscript, a Lisp that compiles to Javascript (so yes, I do like languages like Clojurescript). That gives us escape hatches for controlling complexity that raw Javascript doesn't have. On the other hand, I do still write some raw Javascript and I prefer the same style in both. As far as I can tell from various measurements, the Lisp I write is about half the size of what I would write in JS. That's a win, but not so big that it can be the only strategy for limiting complexity.

Do I come from a functional programming background? Not really. I use closures and lambdas a lot, but my code is rather imperative. My obsession when building systems is to keep the code as simple and small as I reasonably can. Mutable state and even global state don't scare me as long as they help with that. What scares me are architectural assumptions about how one "should" structure complex software.

This sort of thing is a bazillion times more fun to discuss in person, whilst drinking beer, than it is in the contactless format in which we find ourselves. I'd try to convince you that you might do well to drop your OO assumptions, but I'm afraid of coming across as shrill. There isn't enough context here to make one's claims nuancedly enough, and then also "nuancedly" is not a word.