The speaker is insane so it's a good fit.

Feels like "the ancient one" from Dr. Strange send him in multi dimension space.

this man is not a genius. using for each instead of for... wow waste memory much on temp functions? maybe they didn't have `for of` back then

interesting guy, really not sure if he knows what he's talking about or not. he mentions quite a few tidbits, perhaps he has a non-technical audience and so leaves out the parts that I would like to hear. his new data type is actually a reduction in range from a double. he has transferred 3 bits from the exponent to the coefficient. while he may have changed some other properties of the numeric format, he really has not improved on the standard double float value. also, the people he needs to convince to use this new data type are the CPU manufacturers. I am disappointed that he seems totally ignorant of perl and the number of innovations it has made over the years. his general statement that outdated technology as 'bad ideas' doesn't inspire any confidence in his new ideas.

Joel Berger I think that Javascript and Perl 5 are roughly the same age. Perl 4 did not have the blessings of lexical variable scope, references, closures nor an object call syntax. It seems both languages (JS & P5) where chasing many of the same goals at about the same time, so I would be hesitant to accuse one of ripping off the other. As much as I like Perl (often one of my language-of-choice selections for little home jobs), it's not available in a browser, and the rest is history.

Roboprogs Perl 5 was released in 1994 (ref: perldoc.perl.org/perlhist.html) Javascript was released in 1996 (ref: developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/A_re-introduction_to_JavaScript). The features that ES6 adds, those that mimic Perl, and are being touted as new and wonderful, have been in Perl since before Javascript existed and are basically unchanged since then. I am happy that Javascript is becoming a better. more usable language. I object to the claims that it is being born of their own creativity and not on the backs of the innovation of other languages before it. JS's strict mode is enabled using the phrase 'use strict' for goodness sakes! Exactly the Perl mechanism, except since "use" doesn't mean anything in Javascript, it is just a magic literal. The list of stolen features goes on and on. Again I don't care that they are stolen, just say "we are taking these from Perl, since, for all its warts, it got a lot of things right".

+Joel Berger the "use strict" thing is pretty funny, and is a pretty obvious "borrowing". Despite a fuzzy memory on the Perl 5 timeline, I'm pretty sure that Perl also borrowed things like closures from other earlier languages, as well. (e.g. - "code blocks" in Clipper 5, and wherever *they* borrowed that from...)

+Joel Berger cube-drone.com/comics/c/pipes

... spread operator to inherit stuff

TypeScript is still just JavaScript. It gives you a "class" keyword, but it is still only JavaScript. The way that they implement classes, especially private properties and functions, is not the best way it could have been done. Even in the current version of 2.1.4.

Damn your generation is blocking us from Functional Programming. Class must die. Typescript isn't the holy grail.

@Julian Coy My opinion changed a bit. I rather would use typescript thant Javascript. But... currently both are useless. As i can write Rust and compile that to Webassembly which blows both javascript and typescript out of the water. The future is webassembly. I still dislike classes. Rust has not classes but structs with traits which seperates state and logic. Unlike classes. In javascript you use mixins. So conclusion: with Rust you can fully write backend and frontend without needing javascript or typescript with more performance. Webassembly is also the driving force behind web 3.0 and the newest blockchain technology.

@Julian Coy TypeScript is still a superset of JavaScript. That point hasn't changed. However, the type security of parsing and compiling JavaScript is immensely helpful. Classes in ECMAScript 6 is still the worst way it could have been implemented. All that being said, I would never write an application in VanillaJS again given the choice.

@@HermanWillems and what as of today? Just curious since you'd replied 5 years ago, then 2 years ago

Thank you IEEE 754.

Yeah... So now prototypes are bad, classes are bad, but the awkward shit he calls a constructor, that is the best way to do it. Fucking hell... Is that man even serious? What even is his problem with "new"? And how exactly are prototypes better than classes? He himself uses Object.freeze just to make sure nobody messes with his stuff. So where exactly is the power of the prototype?

The pain point is that even something that can be calculated by hand, something as simple as 0.1 + 0.2 gives a wrong answer (I recall this causing some hilarity when learning and trying to code Dijkstra's shortest path algorithm; some distances just didn't compute as exactly the same). IMHO a 56-bit coefficient seems precise enough for most calculations... we cannot have absolutely precise values, so at least having such precision as promised by DEC64 seems a much better compromise. I think being educated about the special cases that cannot be handled by DEC64 would be much better than being educated regarding the shortcomings of the current implementations.

^ What he (she) said. Then there's also `property in obj` - which REALLY represents whether the prop is defined on an object. nulls are very useful for type-checking, as undefined semantically means the value of an attribute, whereas null has more to do with its type.

+Kris Jenkins Well, it will never be Haskell (and probably doesn't want to be), but it's closer to Lisp.

+Roboprogs That's certainly true, but it's a very different claim than the one he's making.

+Kris Jenkins Why is it not? "Javascript can be used as a functional language, in fact it does it quite well... It is possible to implement monads has support for a lambda construct etc."

+Jonathan Cousins The short answer is, because it offers almost no support to control side-effects. The long answer I've blogged here: blog.jenkster.com/2015/12/what-is-functional-programming.html

+Kris Jenkins Nice article, but it still doesn't negate the fact that JS is a functional language or at the very least, can be one. Side-effects does not a functional language negate.

I think the passing in an object as a functions sole param is a solid principle for the reason he stated. You don't have to worry about the order or number of parameters. You can easily see the function and what values it uses, and pass them in as an object. It's really the best way to create a function that's easily refactor-able with minimal pain. It also makes the function a lot easier to understand. This is the sole point of the lecture that he actually made sense on. The rest of the shit he spewed was pure gibberish.