56

FOR FUCKS SAKE SOMEONE PLEASE GIVE ME A JOB WHERE I DONT HAVE TO TOUCH JS, IM SO IRRITATED

Comments
  • 13
    Hire me as a remote developer and I'll deal with that shit for you.
  • 2
    @AleCx04 i dont think you would even raise a finger for this pay
  • 8
    @BindView well a lil cash here and there never hurts. Specially if it takes the burden of a friend. I am a mercenary. As long as I am aware of the tech stack Ill code in it regardless of how shitty it is :P btw my biggest checks came from vbscript man...VBSCRIPT
  • 1
    @AleCx04 WTF STILL USING.
  • 0
    @BindView I work at a gym dude. I never have to touch Javascript.
  • 9
    It’s still better than touching this 🤣
  • 7
    @falmesino Ah yes, you mean PHP? I say that from reputation. But seriously, I've never had to deal with PHP, why do people hate it so much?
  • 0
    @zokazavevu not anymore haha. I used to for classic ASP and maaan believe it or not I actually enjoyed it :P
  • 0
    @JohnScott bandwaggon mentallity really. Much like the people that hate Java etc. Language wars are inherently stupid. Shit tech wars are stupid. The idea of hating php started with the language itself being bad prior to version 5 and having some weird language inconsistencies. That still persist but really nothing that knowing what you are doing cannot surpass. I have built enterprise level solutions with php and still maintain them without breaking a sweat. Mostly my main gripe are if anything the bad php developers, but this is everywhere really. Try the language if you have time or are into web dev. Version 7 is outstanding and the community is friendly af
  • 0
    @irene even in js with all them transpilers and whatnot there is little js :P
  • 0
    @AleCx04 Thanks, I'll take a look.
  • 0
    @JohnScott have fun man :)
  • 0
    @irene because it will only bring about different fragmentation for which we are already suffering from the same issues with all the different engine implementations. The closest thing to a standard exists through Babel which ensures that an js implementation remains consistent while engines catch up on the newer ecmascript versions. Google tried something like that a while back with Dart providing a full environment for the language. But alas JS will continue to remain king in the browser domain.
  • 0
    @ignuit You're going to have to be specific.
  • 1
    Wait, I'm calling 2005, they might be able to help
  • 0
    @ignuit Oh lol
  • 0
    @irene Well, as for 'bytecode for the browser' - there's WebAssembly, which is pretty much that from my understanding.
    But the thing about JS is that it's incredibly accessible and flexible, which most lower-level languages are simply not. Hate it or not, there's a reason JS became hugely popular ^^
  • 2
    @irene yeah, for me, php syntax is a nightmare:

    $object->method();

    is fucking ugly.
  • 0
    @irene poor desgin patterns are found on pretty much all languages in existence and with version 7 of the language a lot of issues and design flaws have been fixed. Saying that php is bad because it is poorly designed is a straw man argument from days gone and really never truly relevant, else we would never use programming languages since they all have a number of flaws. Disliking sigils in identifiers is a *you* thing also. I (for example) think that cpp has the most horrible syntax ever. Yet that doesn't make it a bad language nor would I use it as an argument to say that the languages is bad.
  • 0
    @irene sorry, i edited it for clarification.
  • 0
    @AleCx04 im shit at cpp (and php for that matter), but i think the syntax is nice.

    If you use java syntax and never touch pointers, of course.
  • 0
    There is nowhere to run.
    Js is everywhere now.

    I feel your pain. I have a love-hate relationship with js
  • 0
    @irene pretty much every modern language can be transpiled to JS. Plus there is a huge amount of languages whose only purpose is to be transpiled to JS.

    Why would you want some sort of bytecode instead? One major reason for bytecode is portability, but JS already runs almost everywhere.
  • 0
    @nhll dunno, probably not because doing the same task takes 1000* longer in js than in literally anything else
  • 0
    @BindView I'm assuming you're talking about development time. How long have you been using JS?
  • 0
    @nhll no, im talking about code speed and im a senior js dev

    Here, just pulled a video outta my ass but you can find a lot more https://youtu.be/i0Wd706I6hI
  • 0
    @BindView correct me if I'm wrong. From what I can tell, that video is comparing JS, running in some sort of wrapper, to native C++ compiled specifically for that CPU that's running directly on the hardware. Of course that's dramatically slower and I doubt that bytecode would help a lot in terms of runtime performance.

    Not saying JS is the fastest language, but it's certainly fast enough for the vast majority of its use cases.
  • 0
    @nhll we are talking about transpiling other languages to js, just to remind you
  • 0
    @BindView hmm, maybe I misunderstood you. Weren't you implying that some sort of bytecode in the browser would make sense for performance reasons? If not, then I don't see your point, to be frank.
  • 0
    @nhll "we should transpile to js instead of x"

    I said that we shouldnt because thats a severe bottleneck and a compiled js alternative would make everything a lot better
  • 0
    @BindView I didn't say we should transpile to JS instead of X, I just said we can. Just wanted to know what she thinks would be benefits of in-browser bytecode vs. JS.

    I'm not sure a browser interpreting bytecode would be a hell of a lot faster than a browser interpreting JS. But I'm not an expert on bytecode and virtual machines. I guess at the very least, it wouldn't have to do any syntax checking.
  • 0
    @irene in what cases is JS insufficiently fast and how often does that happen? And I don't mean too slow because the code is an unoptimized, inefficient mess, but because the JS engine is actually not interpreting your optimized code fast enough. If you weren't talking about performance, which kinds of optimizations do you have in mind?

    Your second point is purely subjective. It's kinda like saying "I don't like rap music, so people should stop making it". Just listen to other music, or in this case, use another language and transpile it to JS.
  • 0
    @irene you can by transpiling. Even if you couldn't, your point would still be purely subjective and a matter of taste.
  • 0
    @irene Wut, that's not what I'm saying. It's just that when you say we should ditch JS because you think it's ugly, that's a subjective reason. Again, you can do web without doing JS.
  • 0
    @irene because that you think JS is ugly would still be a subjective reason, even if we weren't able to transpile. That doesn't mean that I think there shouldn't be alternatives to JS, only for other reasons.
Add Comment