text stringlengths 0 1.36k |
|---|
• Compiling with Babel and using it to enable new features |
• Using frameworks that already include compilers (React, Vue, Ember) |
• Features not being widely used or adopted (e.g. modules) |
• Semantics of module loading and how they haven't been well understood for a long time |
• Implications of the JavaScript spec on implementing new features in Node.js |
• Use cases and potential issues with JavaScript proxies and decorators |
• Current status and limitations of feature support in various libraries (e.g. Ember, React) |
• Introduction to create-react-app and its purpose as a management tool for common tasks like Webpack and ESLint configuration |
• The benefits and limitations of using create-react-app for new projects |
• Upgrading from Webpack 1 to Webpack 2, including automatic updates in create-react-app |
• How Webpack 2 supports imports and exports natively, skipping the Babel step |
• Jest 20, a React-specific testing framework, and its benefits over traditional functional tests |
• The advantages of writing unit tests with Jest for React components |
• Discussion of testing with Jest and create-react-app |
• Service worker implementation and caching strategy |
• Code splitting with Webpack and dynamic imports |
• Comparison to Ember CLI and Rails scaffolding |
• Nature of create-react-app as a "living boilerplate generator" |
• Asynchronous imports in React |
• Create-React-App and bundling |
• HTTP/2 and loading JavaScript on load |
• Standardizing configuration for React apps |
• Ember CLI and upgrading configuration tools |
• Compiling down to ES5 vs supported features |
• Electron project for building desktop applications |
• Using Node.js and browser technologies in Electron |
• Unrestricted access to Node.js in Electron |
• Discussion of Adobe AIR and Flex |
• Comparison of desktop apps vs web apps |
• Electron framework and its limitations |
• Tree shaking feature in Webpack 2 |
• Immutable data structures in functional JS |
• Desire for native immutable data structures |
• Mention of book "Hackers" from the 80s |
• Hacker culture origins in the 1950s-60s Tech Model Railroad Club at MIT |
• Homebrew Computer Club and early Apple computing in the Bay Area |
• Gaming industry in the early 80s and its influence on computing culture |
• Richard Stallman's role as a keeper of hacker culture flame before GNU project |
**Mikeal Rogers:** Hey, everybody! Welcome to JS Party, where it's a party every week with JavaScript. We're back! I'm Mikeal Rogers... |
**Rachel White:** I'm Rachel White... |
**Alex Sexton:** And I'm Alan Samson. |
**Mikeal Rogers:** \[laughs\] Rachel and I are back from a nice little vacation in Europe. If you didn't check out the episode where yayQuery took over, definitely go back and listen to that one. That one was so good that Rachel and I were actually fired... I got a text from Adam Stacoviak while I wasn't here; he just ... |
Alright, let's jump into it. We're gonna talk about actually using ES6 and ES7, new language features, with and without compilers, some of the tradeoffs and stuff like that. |
**Alex Sexton:** \[unintelligible 00:01:27.09\] |
**Mikeal Rogers:** I think that we should just talk about specific features rather than what bucket they land in, because they actually get implemented out of order anyway, so... Rachel what features are you using that you've been enjoying from the new language stuff? |
**Rachel White:** I'm not... \[laughter\] |
**Alex Sexton:** You don't write any ES6? |
**Rachel White:** No, I mean... The only thing that I've used really -- because since I don't write production code, nobody tells me what to do, so I kind of just do what I've always done... I've worked with some things that have the new variable naming and stuff like that, but that's really all that I've dipped my toe... |
**Mikeal Rogers:** "let" has been there forever. The big ones for me have been arrow functions and template literals. |
**Rachel White:** Yeah, the arrow functions are super cool and I totally get that it helps with readability so much, but I'm still stuck in that mindset of like forgetting to use it, and I feel like if I'm going to incorporate all of the new type of things, I'm gonna have to enforce it to strict in my code linting... B... |
**Alex Sexton:** Let me jump in... I think I disagree that it makes code more readable. I often am looking at typed and arrow function JavaScript; so there are types in there and there are arrow functions, and people are using implicit returns and stuff, and I look at it and it does not look recognizable to me. I'm sma... |
**Rachel White:** I mean, I'm lucky enough that a lot of the stuff that I work on is fairly small, so when it's much smaller scale I think it's readable, but I can totally get if you're looking at larger systems where you would be scanning through a lot of lines; it would be kind of hard to pattern match... |
**Alex Sexton:** Yeah, it certainly encourages unnamed functions, for one thing. |
**Rachel White:** Yeah, that's true. I don't line anonymous functions. I like to try and name everything if I can. |
**Mikeal Rogers:** I don't know... They've gotten so small and so easy to use that I'm able to use them in ways that you wouldn't use functions before, because it would just be too verbose. |
\[04:09\] There's a couple libraries that I've written for templatized HTML, and using functions inside of a template literal and stuff like that. That would have just been too verbose beforehand, right? |
**Alex Sexton:** Sure. |
**Mikeal Rogers:** I was certainly one of those people -- I mean, you can dig up me saying this, that the problem with arrow functions is that it's just a bunch of extra semantics that you have to keep in your head... Which is true; it is. To your point, Alex, it's certainly not as easily readable as the word "function... |
**Alex Sexton:** Sorry to interrupt... The semantics are maybe easier, because it's just like -- we talked about this a little bit while you guys were gone... It is kind of just the literal scope of the variables; there's no bound... It's just the lexical scope of variables, so you can reason about what a variable or w... |
**Mikeal Rogers:** Yeah, I was just gonna say... Whatever complexity they take out of the pool by not having this, they probably add it with the implicit return stuff. |
I don't know if you saw this or not, but there was a post that somebody did where he was essentially saying that his style guide now is that he no longer uses the function keyword ever. So he doesn't use old style functions anywhere. Everything is arrow functions, and classes have a different, new function syntax for p... |
**Rachel White:** Is this just for like personal projects, or is this in practice in his job? Or do you not know? |
**Mikeal Rogers:** I think both. I mean, he is certainly advocating it to other people, which I assume would also be for production use. But I think that the argument that this actually can reduce complexity if you stop using older syntax is one that comes up a lot. People talk about -- eventually, the language does ge... |
**Alex Sexton:** So the primary rift I had with a person at my company who felt the same was that I was thinking of functions as the default and arrows as the sugar, and he was thinking of arrows as the default and functions as the sugar. Because arrows are - other than in implicit returns - simpler in the sense that t... |
For me, an unbound function is fine, because I'm just not using this inside of it, but for him it's like "Why would you use the thing that could be bound when you could just use a thing that's always lexically bound?" |
So it's an interesting perspective of once you kind of switch over, seeing the arrows as a default and the function as this thing that can be different... |
\[07:53\] The problem is that... I forget who he said does this, but the class functions, if you just use the syntax inside classes, or you do a class and then you just tab inside the blocks and you do a function name - that is not an arrow function, it's not lexically bound. You have to do "function name = (arrowFunct... |
Then if you decide "Okay, I'm always gonna use that syntax", the constructor inside of there can't be listed like that. You have to do the constructor the old way, so it could be bound, but you can't bind constructors; then a whole bunch of things like that start getting weird. |
**Mikeal Rogers:** Well, in the case of classes though, you often do wanna reference this though... You have a use for that. I think what he was saying was that we can take the function keyword out of it at least, and then we can not have this ambiguity. |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.