We do need better languages, but we should get rid of languages that marginally improve. Take CoffeeScript: it pushed EcmaScript forward, but does not offer enough feature today to justify pouring enourmous man-hour resources into it.
And this is true for many more languages (Flow, PureScript, LiveScript, IcedCoffeeScript, ...) which don't innovate on many aspects but just offer a slightly different - sometimes improved - syntax. I do recognize that many languages add value, but that must be offset to the cost of using these languages. Costs which are often quite high: Googleability, StackOverflowability, documentation, tooling, develop mindshare, library support, stability - these things don't come cheap and take years to mature.
Furthermore, these "innovate slightly" languages in the webspace take away resources from improving the current state of the art in mainstream (EcmaScript, TypeScript, Dart, C#, Java, ...). For instance, instead of improving some JS tool now resources go into e.g. writing a language server for aforementioned language.
A good example is Elm which does try to innovate on core concepts (builtin reactivity). That's a conceptual feature which can bring the state of the art of programming language design further.
Last, I do not mean that we should not write any more new languages; but we should stop trying to get large-audience adoption for "innovate-slightly" languages. It's a waste of braincycles and actually hurts the ecosystem.
PureScript is not JavaScript with a different syntax: it is a language with a full Hindley-Milner type system.
"A strongly-typed functional programming language that compiles to JavaScript -- Build real-world applications using functional techniques and expressive types, such as:
Algebraic data types and pattern matching;
Row polymorphism and extensible records;
Higher kinded types;
Type classes with functional dependencies;
Higher-rank polymorphism" http://www.purescript.org
I understand the general sentiment, but the two categories you describe seem subjective to me.
For example, why do you consider TypeScript to be a "state of the art in mainstream" worth improving, and Flow to be just an "innovate-slightly" language? Those two projects are very close in nature. And if the key difference is adoption, then why is Dart along with EcmaScript and TypeScript?
The categories are subjective but at the same time driven by a plethora of factors. The fact that TypeScript is developed by a large company means that it can overcome many barriers. Another factor is that the same company develops a new IDE (editor) in tandem; this means one of the most important parts of a language (tooling) is covered. A third factor of TypeScript is the many language features it offers. Fourth, the development pace is very high compared to most other projects. The "innovation factor" of TypeScript is combined quite high, as the "compile-to-readable-js", language features and tooling support combination is not achieved by many competitors.
Flow is a nice comparison as it is also backed by a large company. They don't offer a developed IDE in tandem, development pace is a lot lower and language features are not that many compared to TypeScript. The "innovation factor" is a lot lower - of the level I think it's not worth pouring resources into it.
Dart is an incredible achievement in terms of type systems tech. Gilad is a major inspiration for me. Great guy.
Idk whose "side" I'm on here, but I didn't want to lose an opportunity to blurt out my love.
It's a shame dart is being managed by google. I wish they had been more hands off with the dart team, as they are deviating from server-side go so people can write mobile apps in dart. Even though they'll look almost exactly like C# apps but with better types...
Anyways yeah. Dart. Cool types. Good vm. Gilad is a cool guy.
No, we don’t “need” it. But how do you think progress is made? People come up with new techniques and tools all the time, based on their previous experiences with a platform.
Sometimes these projects wither and die. Sometimes they find niches where they’re particularly useful. Sometimes they hang around with a core of dedicated users. Sometimes the ideas they introduce go on to influence other languages. Those are all beneficial.
I’m surprised to see this same complaint levelled so often.
We do need better languages, but we should get rid of languages that marginally improve. Take CoffeeScript: it pushed EcmaScript forward, but does not offer enough feature today to justify pouring enourmous man-hour resources into it.
And this is true for many more languages (Flow, PureScript, LiveScript, IcedCoffeeScript, ...) which don't innovate on many aspects but just offer a slightly different - sometimes improved - syntax. I do recognize that many languages add value, but that must be offset to the cost of using these languages. Costs which are often quite high: Googleability, StackOverflowability, documentation, tooling, develop mindshare, library support, stability - these things don't come cheap and take years to mature.
Furthermore, these "innovate slightly" languages in the webspace take away resources from improving the current state of the art in mainstream (EcmaScript, TypeScript, Dart, C#, Java, ...). For instance, instead of improving some JS tool now resources go into e.g. writing a language server for aforementioned language.
A good example is Elm which does try to innovate on core concepts (builtin reactivity). That's a conceptual feature which can bring the state of the art of programming language design further.
Last, I do not mean that we should not write any more new languages; but we should stop trying to get large-audience adoption for "innovate-slightly" languages. It's a waste of braincycles and actually hurts the ecosystem.
PureScript is not JavaScript with a different syntax: it is a language with a full Hindley-Milner type system.
"A strongly-typed functional programming language that compiles to JavaScript -- Build real-world applications using functional techniques and expressive types, such as: Algebraic data types and pattern matching; Row polymorphism and extensible records; Higher kinded types; Type classes with functional dependencies; Higher-rank polymorphism" http://www.purescript.org
Came here to say this. PureScript has innovated enough to influence both Haskell and JavaScript. It is certainly a solid language in its own right
I understand the general sentiment, but the two categories you describe seem subjective to me.
For example, why do you consider TypeScript to be a "state of the art in mainstream" worth improving, and Flow to be just an "innovate-slightly" language? Those two projects are very close in nature. And if the key difference is adoption, then why is Dart along with EcmaScript and TypeScript?
The categories are subjective but at the same time driven by a plethora of factors. The fact that TypeScript is developed by a large company means that it can overcome many barriers. Another factor is that the same company develops a new IDE (editor) in tandem; this means one of the most important parts of a language (tooling) is covered. A third factor of TypeScript is the many language features it offers. Fourth, the development pace is very high compared to most other projects. The "innovation factor" of TypeScript is combined quite high, as the "compile-to-readable-js", language features and tooling support combination is not achieved by many competitors.
Flow is a nice comparison as it is also backed by a large company. They don't offer a developed IDE in tandem, development pace is a lot lower and language features are not that many compared to TypeScript. The "innovation factor" is a lot lower - of the level I think it's not worth pouring resources into it.
Dart is an incredible achievement in terms of type systems tech. Gilad is a major inspiration for me. Great guy.
Idk whose "side" I'm on here, but I didn't want to lose an opportunity to blurt out my love.
It's a shame dart is being managed by google. I wish they had been more hands off with the dart team, as they are deviating from server-side go so people can write mobile apps in dart. Even though they'll look almost exactly like C# apps but with better types...
Anyways yeah. Dart. Cool types. Good vm. Gilad is a cool guy.
8 replies →
No, we don’t “need” it. But how do you think progress is made? People come up with new techniques and tools all the time, based on their previous experiences with a platform.
Sometimes these projects wither and die. Sometimes they find niches where they’re particularly useful. Sometimes they hang around with a core of dedicated users. Sometimes the ideas they introduce go on to influence other languages. Those are all beneficial.
I’m surprised to see this same complaint levelled so often.
I'm not sure what you mean by progress.
Every alternative I know is based on Ecmascript, what other alternatives are?
Nim. I just finished developing a forum using the Karax SPA framework and it's been a great experience: https://github.com/nim-lang/nimforum.
PureScript (Haskell) and BuckleScript (OCaml).
Elm, ReasonML
ClojureScript. Based on EDN.
Dart ! (Lol)