Re:Rust Is the Future of JavaScript Infrastructure
by SiVal on Thursday November 11, 2021 @10:20PM
(#29196011)
There is a special issue for JavaScript, and that's monopoly. If you want internet service and don't like your ISP, you'll be a lot more critical if you can't realistically switch to a different ISP. If you want the world-changing reach of the web and don't like JavaScript, you may be a lot more critical of it than you are of some server-side language that you don't like either (as long as you get to choose your server-side stack).
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Rust Is the Future of JavaScript Infrastructure
by pjmlp on Friday November 12, 2021 @08:52AM
(#29199232)
Same applies to any platform.
Using languages that don't come with the platform SDK, or aren't used to build the underlying platform, always add development costs with additional FFI, debugging tools, binding libraries,....
Re:Rust Is the Future of JavaScript Infrastructure
by azangru on Friday November 12, 2021 @06:54AM
(#29198397)
> There is a special issue for JavaScript, and that's monopoly
There are languages that treat javascript as a compilation target. Purescript, Elm, Closurescript, Rescript, Scalajs, etc. So if you really dislike javascript, you are still free to pick something else.
Re:Rust Is the Future of JavaScript Infrastructure
by ASalazarMX on Friday November 12, 2021 @02:59PM
(#29203889)
That just hides the lack of choice with another layer of complexity. A script language is not the best compilation target, but Web Assembly probably would be.
Re:Rust Is the Future of JavaScript Infrastructure
by azangru on Saturday November 13, 2021 @10:30AM
(#29210416)
> A script language is not the best compilation target
Performance-wise, sure. But the parent commenters were not complaining about performance; they were upset about javascript's syntax, or lack of type guarantees, or typecasting, and so on. Well, all of this can be taken care of by the compiler, if the developer dislikes javascript itself so much.