• @EnderMB
    link
    1922 months ago

    I’ve honestly never understood why someone at Google or Mozilla hasn’t decided to write a JavaScript Standard Library.

    I’m not opposed to NPM, because dumb shit like this happens everywhere. If such a package is used millions of times a day, perhaps it would make sense to standardise it and have it as part of the fucking browser or node runtime…

    • DefederateLemmyMl
      link
      fedilink
      502 months ago

      I’ve honestly never understood why someone at Google or Mozilla hasn’t decided to write a JavaScript Standard Library.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        42 months ago

        This picture honestly looks more like C++ than JS, and before you yell at me, JS doesn’t have any standards let alone competing standards so ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯

        • @stetech
          link
          19 days ago

          JS doesn’t have any standards

          ECMAScript would like to have a word with you.

          If however by “doesn’t have any standards” you meant it’s willing to sink to new low grounds every day, you would be correct.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            29 days ago

            The latter, and the underutilization of the fact that the standard library exists, and consequently the existence of so many micro dependencies.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      44
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      someone at Google or Mozilla hasn’t decided to write a JavaScript Standard Library.

      Core APIs (including data types like strings, collection types like Map, Set, and arrays), Browser, and DOM APIs are pretty good these days. Much better than they used to be, with more features and consistent behaviour across all major browsers. It’s uncommon to need browser-specific hacks for those any more, except sometimes in Safari which acts weird at times.

      The main issue is server-side, and neither Google nor Mozilla have a big interest in server side JS. Google mostly uses Python and Java for their server-side code, and Mozilla mostly uses Rust.

      Having said that, there’s definitely some improvements that could be made in client-side JS too.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      282 months ago

      There’s a js runtime called bun that is 90-something% feature equivalent to node and also has built in alternatives to many packages like express and bcrypt. I haven’t used it myself so I can’t speak to its quality but it’s always nice to see a little competition

      • Dr. Moose
        link
        English
        192 months ago

        So is Deno! You can easily import npm: and node: packages and run typescript without transpiling. With Bun and Deno there’s no reason to use Node tbh.

        • @sfxrlz
          link
          52 months ago

          For starting new projects i absolut agree. At work we have a legacy react app that just will not run on bun and for deno we would probably have to rewrite some stuff.

          • Dr. Moose
            link
            English
            52 months ago

            I’ve updated some legacy nodejs to Deno recently and it’s actually not bad! If you’re using serverless Denoflare is super convenient and DTN is a tool for building Deno to NPM (both esm and commonjs) so you can have easy backwards compatibility if needed, it even shims all of the Deno standard lib.

            It’s really impressive what Deno and Bun people have done - for the first time I actually somewhat enjoy server side JS!

            • @sfxrlz
              link
              32 months ago

              That sounds neat. For our nodejs server this could be done without too much effort. Will keep that in mind, thanks. But I also have to check for the cra app we’re having a lot of issues with.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        32 months ago

        Bun is used by us in production, in dev, everywhere. It’s great. We don’t even use (p)npm to build js packages on our docker images for apps anymore.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      262 months ago

      I wish they would replace JavaScript with something that was made for what it’s used for. JavaScript should have died years ago.

      • @PmMeFrogMemes
        link
        122 months ago

        I’m still waiting for webassembly to take off

      • hswolf
        link
        122 months ago

        Sometimes it’s hard to detach It, specially dealing with web dev.

        The browser expects JS, since JS was made for the browser, so you make a front in JS. But now you need a back, and hey, you already have all models and repos in JS, might as well make the back with JS.

        It’s a vicious cycle. Honestly, JS is fine for either if you are component enough (ie. not using stuff like “is-number”), don’t get the hate on It.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          32 months ago

          No, JS is for scripts, it should have never been a whole framework for a frontend. But we can’t get away from it now, because it’s the only thing we have for browsers.

    • unalivejoy
      link
      fedilink
      English
      22 months ago

      core-js is exactly that, but it focuses on implementing baseline features that can be polyfilled.