He/him, developer, builder of things both tangible and abstract, practitioner of yoga and ukulele... All-around complicated monkey.
https://www.buymeacoffee.com/tobyplaystheuke
In fairness, class in javascript is unnecessary and misleading, but that's my own personal bias.
I've been coding since the early 80s, I was OOP for a long while when it was the new and shiny on desktops. And I see benefits to that pattern, on occasion. OOP in the sense of SmallTalk, where the intent is very directed and meaningful.
But I don't see OOP and FP in opposition. I see them in balance. Used properly, both tools have a very valuable place.
I do appreciate your perspectives, and thank you for clarifying your issues with him. I can see why you'd feel that way.
Thank you for taking the time, and really looking forward to future conversations!
Likewise Toby.
When I started college in 1981 we only had basic and assembly language.
My first job after school was working on a Navy shipboard computer where everything was in assembly.
When IBM standardized the desktop, assembly was still there. It was Microsoft who first used "c" to write gui programs. Finally adding in C++ later.
I actually worked at IBM in 1987 on a midrange using assembly language.
I distinctly remember people saying things like 'we don't need 4th generation languages, we have assembly". Today we almost always use 4th generation languages and rarely, if ever use assembly.
So it's from that perspective that I find those that reject new features in their own language to be just like the 'we don't need it group'. They are stuck in their own self inflicted technical debt gap.
But what really surprises me are the so called experts in their domain shunning new features.
Elliott still to this day pans TypeScript which had features not introduced to Javascript until many years later. He is to me a 'we don't need it' person.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
In fairness,
classin javascript is unnecessary and misleading, but that's my own personal bias.I've been coding since the early 80s, I was OOP for a long while when it was the new and shiny on desktops. And I see benefits to that pattern, on occasion. OOP in the sense of SmallTalk, where the intent is very directed and meaningful.
But I don't see OOP and FP in opposition. I see them in balance. Used properly, both tools have a very valuable place.
I do appreciate your perspectives, and thank you for clarifying your issues with him. I can see why you'd feel that way.
Thank you for taking the time, and really looking forward to future conversations!
Likewise Toby.
When I started college in 1981 we only had basic and assembly language.
My first job after school was working on a Navy shipboard computer where everything was in assembly.
When IBM standardized the desktop, assembly was still there. It was Microsoft who first used "c" to write gui programs. Finally adding in C++ later.
I actually worked at IBM in 1987 on a midrange using assembly language.
I distinctly remember people saying things like 'we don't need 4th generation languages, we have assembly". Today we almost always use 4th generation languages and rarely, if ever use assembly.
So it's from that perspective that I find those that reject new features in their own language to be just like the 'we don't need it group'. They are stuck in their own self inflicted technical debt gap.
But what really surprises me are the so called experts in their domain shunning new features.
Elliott still to this day pans TypeScript which had features not introduced to Javascript until many years later. He is to me a 'we don't need it' person.