Slashdot stories can be listened to in audio form via an RSS feed, as read by our own robotic overlord.


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Why are taxi drivers all so horrible? (Score 1) 295

by narcc (#48598537) Attached to: French Cabbies Say They'll Block Paris Roads On Monday Over Uber

You're trying to impose precision where none exists. I can certainly understand the impulse, but you'll save yourself a whole lot of trouble if you just accept the simple fact that language is naturally messy and imprecise.

If you can't, then at least just let this one go. It's really not worth the effort. What could you possibly hope to achieve?

Comment: Re:interesting points, link (Score 1) 161

by narcc (#48539469) Attached to: Why Apple, Google, and FB Have Their Own Programming Languages

Otherwise, where you have a choice, JavaScript is NORMALLY not the best suited for any role other than client side web page code. Exceptions may exist.

That's a bit more reasonable. Though I wonder why you limit its utility like that? Is there something intrinsic to the language that makes you think it's less suitable than, for example, Python in situations where that language is well-suited? For clarity: JS can't replace PHP where it works well for reasons independent of the languages themselves (that's in the differences between node.js and mod_php), yet JS obviously can't compete with C where C shines, for obvious reasons directly related to the languages.

Comment: Re:iow no, not one counter-example (Score 1) 161

by narcc (#48538805) Attached to: Why Apple, Google, and FB Have Their Own Programming Languages

It's the ONLY choice for client-side web. As I said twice before, that's the one place nothing is worse or better - because you have no other choice.

You seem to forget that, for many years, it was not the only choice. JS handily beat the competition. You may be too young to remember those early days, so I won't hold it against you.

Since neither iOS nor most Android devices run Java applets, that means MOST users today won't run them. A "solution" that won't run at all for most users isn't a solution. You can't say "Java and JavaScript would both work, but JavaScript would be better".

Again, you forget your history. Java in the browser was effectively dead long before iOS and Android hit the scene. It lost out for a reason, after all. Java had its chance, there was more than a little excitement surrounding it, and it still failed miserably.

If you're advocating JavaScript as a server-side language, well that's just silly.

I'm not advocating anything, just calling out your opinion as unsupported and uninformed. (You've never explained your reasoning. I assume that's because there is none and your just repeating a meme.) Still, you'll find that JS on the server is getting quite popular. Even sites like PayPal have adopted it. Call me crazy, but I'm pretty sure they're well-aware of the alternatives and selected JS anyway.

If a key component of the language behaves in unintuitive, surprising, and troublesome ways, that's a valid criticism.

In the case of this, it's only surprising if you know absolutely nothing about the language. If it behaved the same was that it does in a language like Java, it wouldn't make any sense at all. Once you understand the basics of the language, it behaves exactly as you would expect. As I said before, that criticism stems from pure, unadulterated, ignorance. For whatever reason, people seem to think that they don't need to learn the language before using it -- even though it's dramatically different from other languages.

Comment: Re:counter-example? (Score 1) 161

by narcc (#48536953) Attached to: Why Apple, Google, and FB Have Their Own Programming Languages

Where other options exist, the others are probably better suited to the task.

I can't imagine what you'd think is better. Other languages have adopted features like first-class functions and closures as a direct result of influence from JavaScript. What does that indicate to you?

Taking it further, the prototypal approach to OO that JS uses is, without question, superior to the classical approach. As there are vanishingly few examples of other languages that use prototypes instead of classes, just about any language you can offer as a substitute would be, necessarily, inferior. (A simple example for you, repeating a popular meme: Today, the 'best practice' is to favor composition over inheritance. JS naturally lends itself to composition; unlike Java, C#, and similar languages. Alternately: If you're a fan of the GoF book, for some reason, you'll immediately notice that many of the patterns described there are unnecessary in JS.)

To cement the point, the feature of the language most criticized (its type system) is uniquely well-suited to its intended purpose, making it exceptionally well-fit for the web. (Other popular criticisms stem from pure, unadulterated, ignorance: The behavior of this, for example.)

See, what you've done is adopt a popular (on slashdot anyway) opinion of a language that you don't understand. That makes you feel good when you're praised for making vague criticisms (like the one above) and validated when you read (equally uninformed) posts from others.

I'm curious what solutions could be worse than JavaScript.

Java and Python would be examples of popular languages that would clearly be worse than JS on the web, each for different reasons.

"Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra and then suddenly it flips over, pinning you underneath. At night, the ice weasels come." --Matt Groening