Whoa, that crosses the line. If you think someone is wrong, explain why substantively, not by digging up details from their résumé. Your snarky swipe at the end is particularly distasteful. Please don't do that when commenting here.
Edit: I see that we've had to warn you about this before (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11624990). This is really not ok for this site, so if you do it again we will ban you.
I agree with the sentiment but I think the interpretation is off.
I don't think Javascript is a bad language. It does what it does and is good enough.
In my opinion if you look at where Java is right now, that's where javascript is heading towards--it's madness and an epitome of extreme bureaucracy--and it's not because Javascript is a bad language, you can't really pinpoint what exactly caused this because there are so many factors. Node.js is not even the core reason. It's actually HTML5.
HTML5 allowed for all kinds of new features such as localstorage. There used to be times when only way of storing things locally was through cookies which was limited to 4KB. With that spec, all the modern frontend web technology wouldn't have been possible. This includes really anything that gained traction in recent years such as Backbone.js, React.js, etc.
Anyway my point is, it really sucks where this is all headed. Especially looking at javascript itself evolving to become needlessly complex. What we're seeing is just tip of the iceberg, i presume it will get much worse once ES6 actually becomes the functioning standard across all browsers.
People should focus on building meaningful stuff, nowadays what I see is bunch of people boasting how they're a great "frontend developer" by knowing some new build tool or frontend js framework or css framework, which probably will become obsolete in a year or so (Hello grunt, hello backbone).
Just three years ago to build a website all I needed was js, css, html, and maybe some jQuery. Nowadays I need to write coffeescript or es2016(why do they even need to name it that way I don't know), which compiles to JS, write Sass or Less that compiles to CSS, use handlebars for templating which compiles to html, and package them altogether using Grunt, Gulp, or Webpack. When I make a line change, I used to be able to immediately refresh the page, now I need to wait until grunt autodetects the file change, compiles each coffeescript, compiles each template, compiles each stylesheet, and finally reload.
which is should be a dead giveaway that something is terribly wrong here. It was never designed to have a standard library for instance. The author alludes to this fact as being a problem for nodejs that go/ruby doesn't have. Whenever I write a lot of front end code and then have to transition to writing backend code I realize how much my brain has melted trying to think in javascript.
If we follow your logic, assembly would the worst language of all.
Like you said it was never designed to have a standard library and so forth, and therefore it sucks to use JS to do a lot of things.
However I was just saying I don't think it's fair to say something is badly designed because it's bad at doing things it wasn't designed to do. The interpretation of whether having a functional scope is good or bad is also subjective IMO, depending on context.
But anyway if your takeaway from my comment was just this, you didn't get my real point at all. I don't really care about whether javascript is a good language or bad language. My real point was this whole disaster is caused not just by javascript alone.
Remove bad and good from the discussion. JavaScript exists at a place where high level languages are expected, not assembly. JavaScript lacks the productivity enhancements of other high level languages. No standard library and poor debugging as well as loads of quirks. JavaScript, standalone, is far lass productive on a theoretical basis (I say theatrical because no language can take JSS spot in the browser due to enternchment) because of this than other high level languages.
Also, JavaScript was barely designed. Saying it was designed to not have a standard library is revisionist history. It just doesn't have one, and everyone with influence over JS continues to make poor excuses as to why it continues to not have one.
I never said "it was designed to not have a standard library". Instead it was: "it was NOT designed to have a standard library", which means "standard library" was something that the creator didn't even think Javascript will need.
Javascript was only created to make web pages more dynamic when web pages, and nothing more. Back then browser was supposed to be just a "thin client" to access everything magically and only way to keep things locally on the browser was through cookies.
That's not the case anymore and web browsers became a monstrous software that does everything, and that's why we're even talking about "libraries".
Also you say "JS continues to make poor excuses as to why it continues to not have one", but that's exactly what the ES6 is trying to do, with classes, inheritance, etc. I personally do not like that direction, but hope that makes you happy.
Yes, I've been developing websites since before JS existed, so it does in fact make me happy that JS has made some progress related to developer productivity in 20 years. Are they adding other baggage? It seems so, but the addition of a standard library is a things well past its time.
Anyone know if there's anything like Soylent but for protein only?
Sometimes I go on a no-carb diet (sometimes to lose weight and sometimes because carbs make me sleepy) and I am too lazy to buy ingredients and cook at home.
I just want soylent, but with 0 carbs. Anyone know?
I fail to understand a reason why someone would use this... right now it seems to only work on a few LG watches, and isn't Android open source as well? Why would someone choose to implement this when they can implement Android?
Working at a company that ships an embedded Android product, I know Android sometimes costs us far more than it helps us. It took us months to figure out how to route some audio from incoming A2DP Sink Bluetooth profile to the speakers, for example. Fighting with patches, and Android app Java code, and Bluetooth app Java code, and JNI glue, and CPP Android services, and C Bluedroid stack. Meanwhile anyone on the team could have gotten it working in a day on Linux running BlueZ.
Then we constantly have the same issues working with the display. We output ARGB for an augmented reality product, but Android is not designed to output anything but RGB to the final LCD. So similarly, if we were just dealing with a Linux frame buffer, we'd have had a much easier time doing the customization than fighting all of Android's various SurfaceFlinger and other layers between the app and the display.
You experience is a good example why I say that Android isn't Linux, regardless how the FOSS community sees it.
Maybe for your type of work it looks different, but from app developer perspective, they could replace the kernel with something totally different, keep the constrained set of official NDK libraries and no one would notice the kernel wasn't Linux any longer.
Well Tizen's openness is a lie too, at least in wearables. Both Gear S & Gear 2 are already depreciated by Samsung, and the wearable image you can build yourself from source is missing most key components you would use on a watch (for example, you won't have S Health is closed source, Nokia maps -included in Gear S- is closed source too), and even the sensor framework is unusable in an opensource form, since half of the apis are closed and undocumented (you can check all this by taking a look at the srpms from build.tizen.org)
Even if you could overcome that, you would still need to make your own companion app for the phone and framework, since all that is Samsung proprietary too.
That's exactly why I'm the sole mantainer of Gear 2 & Gear S Android Wear ports...
IMHO it would be easier to clean up AOSP and make an open variant of Android Wear, rather than reimplement it all from scratch, but who doesn't like a challenge! At least they can use some parts of Nemo/Sailfish OS
Tizen's openness is also a lie for phones. Just like AOSP, community involvement is not welcome in the Tizen development process and doesn't have any role in deciding what ships on phones.
Are you advocating an OS from the guys that are worse than Apple, closed as much as possible? The "CM cannot support us", "If you flash anything, we blow a fuse", "Crapware is good for you" Samsung?
Granted, I haven't tried Tizen. But I AM using a Samsung device at the moment and let me state it as clear as possible: Samsung is the worst, the absolute worst, phone manufacturer in my frequently changing usage. I wouldn't trust Samsung with anything.
Incidentally I've been at a Samsung HQ (not phone related, printers) a while back and the manager in charge stated something like "We're great at hardware, we suck at support". I had a hard time keeping a straight face.
Honestly: There's no phone company that is worse than Samsung. I am not convinced that Tizen can fix that.
(I have a S6E right now and I constantly want to throw it against various obstacles)
The poster I was replying to was working on an embedded device, and they would like a system that's similar to Android but more like regular Linux. Tizen is that system.
Samsung's policies on their devices have nothing to do with how another company might deploy Tizen.
I'd argue that Maemo/Meego were that system, but I already admitted to know really not a lot about Tizen.
You might be perfectly correct. I wouldn't want to touch anything (Software. Hardware is a different story) made by Samsung with a 10 foot pole and cannot imagine that Samsung would be great as upstream, however you plan to deploy the software.
Again, apologies. My beef is with every piece of Software Samsung published around me, not with you, your opinion or Tizen. I'm extrapolating and generalizing and obviously have a gripe here..
"Popular reputation" means "how it's commonly perceived".
I'm not saying Tizen is popular; on the contrary, I was trying to say that it has a reputation as a pointless also-ran Android clone. But past that prejudice, it's actually a competent Linux platform for embedded systems.
You should always under-promise and over-deliver. It's kind of a bummer to see a customer support app since I was expecting a groundbreaking technology that finally succeeded in implementing teleportation technology using gravity distortion
Your argument is no different than people from the old times saying "the earth is flat". Of course that was the reality back then, but we've found out that's not the case.
When talking about these things you should keep in mind whatever you say is just an opinion and a theory. Just like Newton's law was the reality until Einstein came along, the "reality" is nothing more than our interpretation of the world.
That's why I think it's not a good idea to conclude someone is "wrong" for technical reasons. Our "technical" reality has been evolving and will keep evolving, so our reality today won't be the same as tomorrow's reality.
Downloading pirated torrent is unethical and probably illegal, but tons of people still use it. So I think "less likely" is not really the case. People will do anything as long as there's value.
This guy basically is saying "the world we live in is physical, because well.. it is physical!". How does someone like this become a professor and publish books?
I have no problem someone saying "it is very likely we live in a simulation" because it's an opinion and he's not trying to hide the fact that it's just an opinion.
But saying stuff like "THAT IS WRONG" and "It's conceptually and empirically incorrect" is really amateur.
By the way does this guy even know what "empirically" means? Our experience is nothing more than what we perceive as human beings, and there's plenty of evidence that supports that what we perceive is not necessarily the reality. And this guy is saying "it's empirically wrong". It is impossible to prove a philosophical theory "empirically wrong".
Is there a specific reason why you would want to open source it?
Just my personal opinion: users don't care if your app is open sourced or not (Unless there's a clear reason for it to be open sourced, for example providing transparency in cases user privacy is critical)
Exactly what I'm trying to establish myself: what are the implications of starting a project that is "free and open source?" Community involvement, participation... What did projects have in mind when they went that route, and what was the reality of it? For what projects is open source beneficial, and which projects should be kept proprietary: I don't think it's just a questions of monetization and profit, but I'm not sure. Are there some industries for which the accompanying software should be open source? Thanks for starting the parlez.
If you're wondering about this question, then it is very likely that you shouldn't make it open source.
Like I said it only makes sense when you feel the need to make it open source. Some of the reasons I could think of:
1. Your app has features that are very privacy sensitive, so you want to let your users know there's nothing fishy going on.
2. You're not building the app because you want users, but as a learning experience. Hey maybe you can even use your public code as your resume (Then again, this can backfire if your code is not exquisite)
3. Marketing stunt (This won't work in most cases, so if you're thinking of this don't do it)
4. Your app has server aspect and you can't afford to run it anymore so thinking of shutting it down, but you want to do your users a favor.
Community involvement and participation will NOT come just because you open sourced it. In fact you should assume it won't happen. This is true for even extremely successful open source projects. It's only less than 1% of people who contribute and 99% of freeloaders.
https://medium.com/@loorinm/becoming-a-software-engineer-is-... She was admitted to "Hack Reactor" in October 2015. Well that escalated quickly.