Comment by jdkoeck
6 months ago
It’s good you ended on the one thing JSX got right: everything is an expression. It’s that simple. There’s nothing imperative about evaluating a template, it’s entirely covered by functional programming techniques. You’re just producing a value.
And yes, modern JavaScript uses tons of concept from functional programming, where it is understood that mutating values and triggering side effects should be a last resort. This is why a good js programmer uses ten times more maps then he uses for loops.
Maybe you don’t know how dominant React is today? Two third of JavaScript developers use React at work (https://2024.stateofjs.com/en-US/libraries/front-end-framewo...).
It feels like you’re out of touch, have you used JavaScript lately?
> mutating values and triggering side effects should be a last resort.
Output is a side-effect.
> This is why a good js programmer uses ten times more maps then he uses for loops.
This is a) massively overstating things, and b) not relevant to a case where zero for loops can be used.
> Maybe you don’t know how dominant React is today? Two third of JavaScript developers use React at work
I checked those figures before I posted that comment to double-check my memory. Two thirds is not anywhere close to “React won the market”. Android has ~72% global market share, but I’m sure you wouldn’t say that Android has won the smartphone market.
> It feels like you’re out of touch, have you used JavaScript lately?
We disagree, that doesn’t mean I’m out of touch. Try not to be so insulting.
It’s not an insult, if you think for loops are commonplace in modern JavaScript and React isn’t the dominant frontend framework by far (twice more used than the next in line, vue), you’re out of touch, it’s just a statement.
How can you not realize that producing a string or a tree of elements is a purely functional operation? There’s no side effect here. Are you familiar with the concepts of functional programming?
You are being insulting because every time we disagree, you ignore half of what I am saying to assume I don’t know what I am talking about. Two informed people can disagree but you don’t seem to get that. A conversation is not a competition where one person gets to prove the other person is ignorant.
Take “React winning”. We disagree that React won because I don’t think 66% of a market is “won”. But you jumped to the conclusion that I just didn’t know what I was talking about. Then I clarified that the difference in our opinion is not the knowledge of the market share but our judgment of it, and I gave the example of Android not having “won” the smartphone market with ~72% of the market… and you just ignored that and doubled down on calling me out of touch.
Take the use of map(). I am very clearly distinguishing between common usage and defined semantics. The gap between the two was what I was complaining about. But you ignored what I was saying and decided that I don’t know map() is used a lot in modern JavaScript, when that was the core of my complaint!
And for functional programming techniques, we disagree in how we think about the operation. You see it as data processing, I see it as I/O. I very specifically pointed out that I/O is a side-effect. This is a mainstream viewpoint in functional programming. But you ignored what we actually disagree about and assumed it’s just because I don’t know anything about functional programming.
Your approach to disagreeing with me is to ignore half the things I say so that you can attack me for being clueless. You need to do better.
2 replies →