galistoca

I never said "it was designed to not have a standard library". Instead it was: "it was NOT designed to have a standard library", which means "standard library" was something that the creator didn't even think Javascript will need.

Javascript was only created to make web pages more dynamic when web pages, and nothing more. Back then browser was supposed to be just a "thin client" to access everything magically and only way to keep things locally on the browser was through cookies.

That's not the case anymore and web browsers became a monstrous software that does everything, and that's why we're even talking about "libraries".

Also you say "JS continues to make poor excuses as to why it continues to not have one", but that's exactly what the ES6 is trying to do, with classes, inheritance, etc. I personally do not like that direction, but hope that makes you happy.

If we follow your logic, assembly would the worst language of all.

Like you said it was never designed to have a standard library and so forth, and therefore it sucks to use JS to do a lot of things.

However I was just saying I don't think it's fair to say something is badly designed because it's bad at doing things it wasn't designed to do. The interpretation of whether having a functional scope is good or bad is also subjective IMO, depending on context.

But anyway if your takeaway from my comment was just this, you didn't get my real point at all. I don't really care about whether javascript is a good language or bad language. My real point was this whole disaster is caused not just by javascript alone.

What do you think would be the benefit?

I agree with the sentiment but I think the interpretation is off.

I don't think Javascript is a bad language. It does what it does and is good enough.

In my opinion if you look at where Java is right now, that's where javascript is heading towards--it's madness and an epitome of extreme bureaucracy--and it's not because Javascript is a bad language, you can't really pinpoint what exactly caused this because there are so many factors. Node.js is not even the core reason. It's actually HTML5.

HTML5 allowed for all kinds of new features such as localstorage. There used to be times when only way of storing things locally was through cookies which was limited to 4KB. With that spec, all the modern frontend web technology wouldn't have been possible. This includes really anything that gained traction in recent years such as Backbone.js, React.js, etc.

Anyway my point is, it really sucks where this is all headed. Especially looking at javascript itself evolving to become needlessly complex. What we're seeing is just tip of the iceberg, i presume it will get much worse once ES6 actually becomes the functioning standard across all browsers.

People should focus on building meaningful stuff, nowadays what I see is bunch of people boasting how they're a great "frontend developer" by knowing some new build tool or frontend js framework or css framework, which probably will become obsolete in a year or so (Hello grunt, hello backbone).

Just three years ago to build a website all I needed was js, css, html, and maybe some jQuery. Nowadays I need to write coffeescript or es2016(why do they even need to name it that way I don't know), which compiles to JS, write Sass or Less that compiles to CSS, use handlebars for templating which compiles to html, and package them altogether using Grunt, Gulp, or Webpack. When I make a line change, I used to be able to immediately refresh the page, now I need to wait until grunt autodetects the file change, compiles each coffeescript, compiles each template, compiles each stylesheet, and finally reload.

Anyone know if there's anything like Soylent but for protein only?

Sometimes I go on a no-carb diet (sometimes to lose weight and sometimes because carbs make me sleepy) and I am too lazy to buy ingredients and cook at home.

I just want soylent, but with 0 carbs. Anyone know?

I fail to understand a reason why someone would use this... right now it seems to only work on a few LG watches, and isn't Android open source as well? Why would someone choose to implement this when they can implement Android?

+1

You should always under-promise and over-deliver. It's kind of a bummer to see a customer support app since I was expecting a groundbreaking technology that finally succeeded in implementing teleportation technology using gravity distortion

Your argument is no different than people from the old times saying "the earth is flat". Of course that was the reality back then, but we've found out that's not the case.

When talking about these things you should keep in mind whatever you say is just an opinion and a theory. Just like Newton's law was the reality until Einstein came along, the "reality" is nothing more than our interpretation of the world.

That's why I think it's not a good idea to conclude someone is "wrong" for technical reasons. Our "technical" reality has been evolving and will keep evolving, so our reality today won't be the same as tomorrow's reality.

Downloading pirated torrent is unethical and probably illegal, but tons of people still use it. So I think "less likely" is not really the case. People will do anything as long as there's value.

This guy basically is saying "the world we live in is physical, because well.. it is physical!". How does someone like this become a professor and publish books?

I have no problem someone saying "it is very likely we live in a simulation" because it's an opinion and he's not trying to hide the fact that it's just an opinion.

But saying stuff like "THAT IS WRONG" and "It's conceptually and empirically incorrect" is really amateur.

By the way does this guy even know what "empirically" means? Our experience is nothing more than what we perceive as human beings, and there's plenty of evidence that supports that what we perceive is not necessarily the reality. And this guy is saying "it's empirically wrong". It is impossible to prove a philosophical theory "empirically wrong".

Youtube is a monopoly in a way Google is a monopoly. Just like how there's Bing and DuckDuckGo but most people use Google, most people use Youtube although some do use sites like vimeo. If you think it's so easy to build a site that competes with Google or Youtube you should go ahead and build one and overtake them. After all, nowadays everything is open sourced, you can even build your own search engine from scratch overnight.

If you're wondering about this question, then it is very likely that you shouldn't make it open source.

Like I said it only makes sense when you feel the need to make it open source. Some of the reasons I could think of:

1. Your app has features that are very privacy sensitive, so you want to let your users know there's nothing fishy going on. 2. You're not building the app because you want users, but as a learning experience. Hey maybe you can even use your public code as your resume (Then again, this can backfire if your code is not exquisite) 3. Marketing stunt (This won't work in most cases, so if you're thinking of this don't do it) 4. Your app has server aspect and you can't afford to run it anymore so thinking of shutting it down, but you want to do your users a favor.

Community involvement and participation will NOT come just because you open sourced it. In fact you should assume it won't happen. This is true for even extremely successful open source projects. It's only less than 1% of people who contribute and 99% of freeloaders.

Parent said "most of", and I think that's pretty much correct regardless of how vibrant of a community Imgur has. Most traffic to imgur is via embeds or links from another discussion forums. The former case obviously provides no exposure to Imgur community, and even in the latter case most people are there only to look at the picture, not to engage as an Imgur community member.

The whole point of this discussion thread is that Imgur is f*ed because they aren't independent enough. Otherwise there's nothing to worry about, right?