On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 10:20:38 -0800
Louis Santillan <lpsantil_AT_gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 9:45 AM, Mattias Andrée
> <maandree_AT_kth.se> wrote:
> > On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 09:10:50 -0800
> > Louis Santillan <lpsantil_AT_gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 2:20 AM, Adrian Grigore
> >> The small part may sound like suckless, but I find it
> >> to
> >
> > It should be noted that suckless is not about small
> > software packages (with no reduction in the total
> > size of all package), it is about simple (and clear
> > and frugal) software. There is nothing in the philosophy
> > saying that libraries should be split into pieces.
>
> That was the point I was trying to make. nodejs/npm
> crowd confuse small with simple, clear, and frugal.
> Everywhere you see "only 1.2kb when gzipped!" which is a
> false measure of complexity, performance, and design.
Really, people use that as a measure. And when gzipped
at that. If you are going to measure the size, use the
sum of all files or the size of an uncompressed tarball.
But using the program complexity would be a better
measurement, if course it is not a good measurement.
There is no good measurement for complexity, and especially
not for design. Performance of course can measured, but
you have to be really careful.
>
> > Really, their community made something called
> > "Modern JavaScript"? How vain and arrogant.
>
> Yeah...everything after the rise to popularity of nodejs,
> I call "modern JS". As someone who started embedding
> SpiderMonkey JS 18 years ago, and continues today with
> V8, I intentionally call it "modern JS" (lowercase m).
> People are really making some dumb ass language &
> ecosystem decisions these days, getting bit by the
> "agile/devops/continuous delivery" bug, and adding
> features to JS every other year, including many features
> that seem to add little or no performance/developer
> productivity. ...But I digress...
>
Received on Tue Dec 15 2015 - 19:27:25 CET