What's bad with using JavaScript in development of

Bloated, slow, ugly

>>57217359
Because it's for the web
You don't make complex applications in 100% scripting languages, that's just shit design, even with languages designed with lightness in mind (lua for example), you'll either need to implement a ton of libraries in C which will make the compilation long and basically useless, or implement everything in the slower language you have chosen.

There's a reason nobody uses atom as their text editor, because that shit does as much as sublime while being slower AND taking fucking forever to start on windows (strangely it's faster on linux, go figure)

>>57218154
>nobody uses atom
>unironically believing this

Because you have to run a fucking web browser just to run the program.

>>57217359
assembly is better

>>57217359
it's not C

>>57218342
again, assembly is better than C (and by extension every language) for every purpose, including GUI

>>57218389
>including GUI
Are you joking?

File: ibniz_evolving.png (206KB, 513x513px) Image search: [Google]

206KB, 513x513px

>>57219270

there are tricks involving direct memory manipulation only available at the instruction level

No reason not to use js + html + css for all programs, web or not.

>>57219312
Resource consumption is a reason, though not one that actually matters very often anymore

>>57219301
Well, why would I want to?

>>57217806
>>57218325
These. JavaScript is for websites.

>>57217359

because people are retards, and like to blame tool they use, and not themselves, if you know how to write good JS code, its freaking faster as hell then some idiot who use C with tons of memory leaks (ofc good C programmer is always better then good JS programmer, but lets face it, C is freaking hard to MASTER, not learn)

https://www.destroyallsoftware.com/talks/the-birth-and-death-of-javascript
http://runtimejs.org/

Eventually, even your OS will be written in JavaScript

>>57219351
>Resource consumption

8GB ram, 2GB GPU... wew I like this reasoning, mention this and don't mention that you need 5xtime to build something in C that works everywhere, HTML, CSS and JS are pretty much universal nowdays

>>57217359
Bloated and slow
And I like any normal person want my software responsive and lightweight because hardware ain't infinite

>>57218325
>what is Node.js

>>57217806
>>57218154
>>57219577
/thread

>>57219766
working with nodejs core libraries (especially IO) make me want to kill myself.

File: nuke_schematic.jpg (2MB, 2560x1978px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2560x1978px

Why would you even want to use Javascript? It's not a very pleasant language to work with and it's easy to learn another language.

javascript is already way overused on the web, it absolutely doesn't need to be used in even more unsuitable places

>>57217806
>>57218154
These.
To implement desktop functionality you need a non-web programming languages (i.e. referencing C/C++ libraries to do the actual work). Javascript is for front-ends.

>>57217359
I was working in a company that uses Intel xdk so it converts html ,css and js. To apk it wasn't bad , quite easy to pick up , however I discovered that it's code hiding is not existing. If you take a apk made by one of those html to Android converters and change extension to rar it will allow you to see the code used. Since it's html and html is made for client side , you potentially can give your entire source code away.

>>57219360
Nice response faggot. Kill (you)rself.

>>57219417
Try reading more than two words into a sentence

>>57219417
You realize that javascript only works because of languages like C and C++, right? Without being able to use those libraries it wouldn't do anything past graphic design.

>>57220008
It runs everywhere where modern browser is present. You don't care about portability issues.

>>57222686
>where modern browser is present
You might as well have just used Java. It's more powerful as a desktop language.

>>57222603
>You realize that javascript only works because of languages like C and C++, right

C and C++ only work because of Assembly. What the fuck is wrong with having a high-level language?

>>57219409
I nearly died from looking at that page. Just the idea that someone spend a lot of time into this is horrifying

>>57222804
Why would you build an application in Javascript when you could have built it in C/C++? Would you throw together a bash script and call it a desktop application?

>>57222808
>Just the idea that someone spend a lot of time into this is horrifying
People on 4chan spend more time though.

>>57222862
rly makes u tink

>>57222840
>Would you throw together a bash script and call it a desktop application?
Sure. Linux used thrown together bash scripts as its entire init system for years

>>57222903
And it's being fixed because it's a really stupid way of doing things. The only major issue with systemd is developer transparency.

>>57222937
Figures that a retarded systemd supporter would be stuck in the past and unable to accept modern development practices

>>57222840
>Why would you write high level code?
There are people who write more complex stuff than FizzBuzz

>>57222952
>modern development practices
Oh, you mean trash?

Javascript is completely ass-backwards in design. It's so shitty they actually made variations of it to make it more coherent (coffeescript/typescript/etc). Why the hell would you want that shit on the desktop?

>>57222977
That might be the dumbest response I've seen yet on /g/. No non-webdev job I've come across has even mentioned that stupid ass test. I'm sure random startups love it, it's not used elsewhere.

>>57223011
>completely ass-backwards in design
Just like systemd.
If you're going to pull reasoning out of your ass, at least don't apply it selectively

>>57223041
I wasn't talking about JS. I just said that you would often want to write an application in a high level language because it's just more convenient.

In the future you will compile typescript directly to webassembly

>>57223052
Feel free to explain your position on systemd. The consolidation makes sense to me.

>>57223083
What high-level language then? C#? Javascript is strictly in the realm of web development, you either need a browser or node to run it.

>>57223105
>What high-level language then?
JavaScript for example.
>Javascript is strictly in the realm of web development, you either need a browser or node to run it.
You also need a Python interpreter to run Python code. Your point being?

As I said, I'm not just talking about JavaScript, I'm talking about high level languages in general.

>>57223147
I wasn't referring to Python.

You have scripting languages:
Javascript, Python, Ruby, Bash, Powershell

Then you have interpreted programming languages:
Java
From what I understand a couple of the .Net languages are like this

Then you have compiled programming languages:
C
C++
etc

In terms of speed and efficiency, you gain the further you go down. The reason you don't program in assembly is because it's terribly impractical.

If you were to build a desktop application you have to build a wrapper to run it. Then you need a wrapper for a GUI because you don't run a desktop application in a browser (although Google seems to think you do). Then you need to call libraries in other languages. You can build something quickly this way but you cannot build it efficiently.

>>57217806

>Bloated, slow, ugly

Popcorn Time is the most beautiful and responsive desktop program I have ever used.

Try doing Popcorn Time in Qt or JavaFX and you will realize that web UI design has surpassed desktop UI design.

>>57222766
>You might as well have just used Java
But JavaScript already contains a part of Java.

>>57223490
No, they are completely unrelated.

>>57223348

>Popcorn Time is the most beautiful and responsive desktop program I have ever used.

Why are mods still allowing millennials on /g/?

>>57217359
It doesn't have a standard GUI toolkit, because it's designed to go along with HTML forms. And it's designed as an interpreted language, which means converting it to a compiled language for the speed advantage will break some features (such as eval()). Which means a compiled, standalone JS executable will have to be statically or dynamically linked to a JS compiler/interpreter, due to the ability to recieve code from the user at runtime. This is not true of C/C++ for example, where there is a solid distinction between compile-time code and data provided at runtime. For example, a C compiler understands the meaning of "int x = 5", but there is no way to enter that at runtime and have the program understand it, unless you either include a C interpreter subroutine in your program, or use system calls to invoke an actual C compiler and run the output as a subprocess. Even parsing and evaluating arithmetic expressions (like "2 + 2") at runtime in C requires writing a specialized expression parsing subroutine. Whereas in Javascript there is basically no distinction between code and data, the interpreter can interpret user input just as well as it can what's written in the source file.

>>57219409
Will we ever see a JS engine smaller than 1 MB?

>>57224488
>muh gray on gray
okay grandpa!!!!! XD

>>57222686
Browsers are bloated (90MB) but a minimalist C compiler can fit in a few MB.

>>57222804
Apart from its Lisp-like characteristics, JavaScript isn't much higher level than C++.

>>57223147
And Python isn't one of the main languages for desktop apps. It's mainly used as a fun toy for amateur programmers, and as a fancy calculator for scientists. Interpreter doesn't provide the speed needed for regular desktop apps.

>>57223490
That's like saying Java contains a part of C.