• Ephera
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    Just had to look at it out of curiosity and man, it looks like yet another C+=1. The code samples on Wikipedia contain one of those gaudy for-loops and a ternary, as if that was still peak language design four decades after C got published.

    But what I seriously don’t get: Why the hell did they develop Go then? That’s yet another C+=1, with even some design similarities to Dart, e.g. it’s garbage-collected but compiles to machine code.
    Like, yeah, it wouldn’t be the first time that different teams develop competing products at Google, but what kind of culture leads to there even being demand for two C+=1s?

    • hector@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      6 months ago

      I can’t get enough of JSX (React) markup syntax personally, it’s just too simple and efficient that I don’t want to learn anything else ;)

      To be fair, Go is very different from Dart and if they look like C it’s because they try to give you the abstraction with the memory safety which is pretty great.

      But yeah Google is kinda the developer of useless languages. Even if Go is a banger of a technology

      • stevecrox@kbin.run
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        If you have the freedom try Typescript.

        The tsx files are almost identical to jsx except for the need to define the field types your ingesting.

        While thats a little extra work, it allows Visual Studio Code to perform deeper analysis and provide much more helpful contextual hints.

        I grew to love JSX and tried TSX out of interest and you couldn’t convince to go back to pure JS

    • AMDIsOurLord
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      Dart has all the modern bell and whistles and bullshit syntax too, the Wikipedia samples hardly do it justice