>nodejs >angularjs >backbonejs >expressjs >reactjs

>>61967141
JS won

>asm.js
>runnable on gpu.js
just finish the circle, compile Linux kernel and userspace in browser and run normal operating system through canvas. Than use whatever language inside it.

>>61967220
maybe it did but why do you need some many frameworks for?

>>61967141
systemdjs when?

Don't forget the actually bothersome ones OP:
>Electron
>Ionic
>React Native
Fuck off my desktop.

>>61967269
Didn't you hear? systemd-jscd is already in the Fedora 27 alphas.

>>61967252
Weak standard library and a ton of developers being nimbys or wanting stuff to put on their resumes for the smaller ones.

>>61967361
>nimbys
I think you mean NIHs

>tfw your meme forum software runs poorly on android because of javascript bloat
https://meta.discourse.org/t/the-state-of-javascript-on-android-in-2015-is-poor/33889

>>61967141
viejs

Javascript is a god of programming language like French, so just accept it.

File: 1490165272169.png (263KB, 557x605px) Image search: [Google]

263KB, 557x605px

>>61967141
>4chanjs

>>61967250
kek

>>61967548
It will be done in 2020.
>implying you can do the logo
It's already done and it's my wallpaper since 1998.

>not using a jslinux as your main OS

https://bellard.org/jslinux/vm.html?url=https://bellard.org/jslinux/buildroot-x86.cfg

>>61967141
>I'm too stupid to learn js

>>61968387
>i'm too stupid so i learn js in the first place

>>61967141
kernel.js

>>61968422
>t. moron that can't learn easy shit like js

>>61968193
Please tell me it's something like Shell In A Box, and not a js implemented linux

File: 1491253405671.png (132KB, 1100x1100px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 1100x1100px

>>61967141
>Framework from 2011
>Djs

>writing in JS ever

lol get out webdev hipster fags

File: 1473235391538.gif (535KB, 640x636px) Image search: [Google]

535KB, 640x636px

>>61967548
Do i smell another general ?

File: 1469467715206.png (103KB, 346x338px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 346x338px

>using just the newest ECMAScript edition supported by browsers (or node.js) without any libraries
It's pretty comfy~

>>61968193
http://copy.sh/v86/?profile=archlinux
There are other operating systems on this site as well, and it's possible to boot from local files.

>>61968387
>I'm too stupid to learn anything that isn't JS

random question here, what do JS libraries even do? I've written a bit of JS and it already has so many built-in functions and classes that I couldn't imagine needing a library for anything.

>>61969077
jQuery, for instance tries to work in as many browsers as it can and provides functions that will work in all these browsers and work around their quirks. It also provides a somewhat simpler interface to DOM.

>>61967141
>comfyjs
>botnetjs
>cia-niggerjs
>memejs
>ryzenjs
>cjs
>haskeljs
>thinkpadjs
>archjs

>>61968756
Thisdesu
>manager proposes new members framework
>everyone tells him to fuck off
Love my job

>>61968448
If people knew JS, they wouldn't need all these shitty libraries.

>>61967252
Because it's so fucking easy to create frameworks.

It's the same reason why LISP fell apart: too easy to make your own lisp.

>>61970385
If people knew C, they woldn't need to use all these shit operating systems.

>>61967520
The Apple iPhone 7 Plus doesn't have this problem.

>>61967250
https://bellard.org/jslinux/

>>61969077
One of my favorite libraries is immutable-js

It provides basic data structures like List, Map, Set, Record, etc.
But like the name suggests are all immutable which has three huge benefits:
- No more guessing if a function modifies the original or returns an updated version - ALL functions return an updated version, no exceptions. - makes your code very consistent.
- You can't accidentally modify your data (which could lead to unexpected behaviors elsewhere).
- Many of the methods are faster (ie: better optimized) than would be possible with mutable structures.

I use it pretty much everywhere.

>>61970976
Wouldn't calling

Object.freeze()

be enough?

>>61971260
Actually, I was thinking about

Object.seal()

. Too bad const doesn't seal by default.

File: eeeehhhhh.png (121KB, 264x268px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 264x268px

>>61967141
>FCUNCTIONAL PROGRAMMING IN JS UPDATED GUIDE [CURRENT YEAR]

>>61971260
>>61971452

That only makes them immutable.

It doesn't provide the methods you need to actually work with immutable structures.

With immutable-js you can write stuff like this:

const racestWithTheBiggestDicks = (
new List(arrayOfDicks)
.filter((dick) => dick.getWidth() > 30) // no skinny dicks
.sortBy((dick) => dick.getSize())
.reverse()
.map((dick) => dick.getColor())
.toSet()
)

>>61971876
>It doesn't provide the methods you need to actually work with immutable structures.
>Array.prototype.filter()
>Array.prototype.map()
>Array.prototype.reverse()
Learn the language before you start throwing libraries on top of it.

>>61970976
why kind of stupidly complex application do you have to build to not know if you're modifying or returning new data? sounds like developers being retarded

>>61971937
Lodash is faster in almost every case on those kinds of operations.

>>61970976
angular.copy() and _.cloneDeep() desu.

>>61971937
>>Array.prototype.filter()
fine

>>Array.prototype.map()
fine

>>Array.prototype.reverse()
NO.
This replaces the array IN-PLACE rather than returning a new reversed array.
Which will (obviously) not work on immutable arrays.

>>61971941
It's the standard JS functions that are inconsistent.
Because JS is still, at its core, an utterly shit language.

Let's say you pass an array to a function.
And in that function you do:
const reversedArray = array.reverse()

Perfectly fine and works in that function.
But you also just reversed the original array, which might be used again somewhere else where you needed it in its original form.
Good luck debugging this.

And JS is full of these pitfalls.
That's why you use libraries to make a shit language less shit.

>>61972027
>Array.prototype.slice()
Wow, it's so hard to look things up on MDN.

Thanks for bloating websites with your newest js library that you'll use for 5 minutes before switching to something else.

>>61972055
>This replaces the array IN-PLACE rather than returning a new reversed array.

someArray.slice().reverse()

Wow, this is so hard to do.

>>61972056
That has nothing at all to do with pointers not allocating new memory for variables or the mutability of the data,what are you smoking?

how long until we can run virtual machines and gpu pass through in js so I can play games reliably and with negligible performance loss

>>61967141
>boneless.js

>>61972027
The argument was "why use libraries"?

I gave an example of a library I use that I find very useful.
You just gave examples of two more libraries.

>>61971996
I used lodash before switching to immutable.

Speed is only a minor factor for me, but even there immutable has the edge in the type of applications I write, specifically with Redux .

But again I'm not arguing about using library X over library Y.
Just that using libraries in JS is a good idea in general.

>>61968756
Too bad I still have to support ie11

>>61972149
You have an example of an entire library dedicated to a single function that can be found as a small part of other libraries.

File: 1473337807066.png (512KB, 785x757px) Image search: [Google]

512KB, 785x757px

>>61967141
> not mentioning vuejs

>>61972081
slice() is very slow with big arrays.

But my main argument is about preventing bugs.
Once you have worked on big projects you'll learn how important that is.
And btw, your attitude is exactly why JS developers have such a terrible name. - "it works here so why use something more robust and elegant" is not an argument any employer wants to hear.

>>61972164
https://babeljs.io/
Just don't go too crazy with APIs and you're set.

>>61972118
It can be used to create a new Array, and you don't have to care about it being immutable if you're chaining methods.

If you're doing things well, you won't even need variables inside your functions.

>>61972221
>But my main argument is about preventing bugs.
Just don't store it in a variable at all, you won't have ANY problems that way.

>>61972179
immutable-js is a lot more than the small example I gave.

And the fact it's a complete package is exactly why I think it's so great.
Instead of using a different technique everywhere I can stick to a consistent format throughout my project which makes it much easier to maintain.