I read Kyle's book, and I found it really informative.
But I am a little confused on the discussion in "You Don't Know JS: this & Object Prototypes".
That series say that Object Linking to Other Object design pattern is cleaner and simpler then object oriented design pattern. I do agree with this.
But I notice that many react code snippet prefer using ES6 class keyword which represents object oriented code style.
First and foremost you don't have to teach programmers that you introduce to your project to OOP pattern as it is by far the most popular one and people are used to it. Teaching someone consumes time and money - two things that business value the most.
Second thing would be that it is hard to prove that one programming paradigm is better than the other - especially if you can count on one hand implementations of OLOO when OOP has hundreds of thousands.
Just because something is better (I also agree with Kyle) doesn't mean it will be the most popular choice.
I was once asked by a student why we write:
parseInt(something)
something.toLowerCase()
that is, why one has the variable as a parameter, while the other is applied to the variable.
I explained that while toLowerCase is a method of string objects, parseInt wasn’t designed that way. OK, so it’s window.parseInt, but that just makes it a method of a different object.
But it struck me as an inconsistency — why are some string or other functions not methods of their corresponding objects?
The question is why? Is there a technical reason why parseInt and other functions are not methods, or is that just a historical quirk?
In general, Javascript was designed in a hurry, so questioning each individual design decision isn't always a productive use of your time.
Having said that, for parseInt in particular, the reason is simple to explain: it accepts pretty much any arbitrary type, like:
parseInt(undefined) // NaN
Since you cannot implement undefined.parseInt(), the only way to do it is to implement it as a static function.
As of ECMAScript 2015, parseInt has been mirrored in Number.parseInt, where it arguably makes more sense than on window. For backwards compatibility window.parseInt continues to exist though.
In this specific case it makes sense with respect to encapsulation.
Consider parseInt() - it is taking a value of an unknown type from an unknown location and extracting an integer value from it. Which object are you going to have it a method of? All of them?
String.toUpperCase() should only take a string as input (else something which may be cast as a string) and will return a string. This is well encapsulated within a small subset of cases, and since values are not strongly typed it seems logical to not have it as a global function.
As for the rest of JavaScript I have no idea nor do I have insight into the real reason it was done this way, but for these specific examples it appears to me to be a reasonable design decision.
The development progress of the JavaScript language is quite fast in recent years. With that in mind, a lot of things are still in the API due to backward compatibility - historical reasons as you said. Although I can't say that's the only reason.
In JavaScript, you can approach a problem not just with Object oriented paradigm (where methods of objects usually shares a common state). Another, functional approach can be applied quite easily without getting into too much trouble with JavaScript language.
JavaScript gives great power to its users with many possibilities of approaching a problem. There is a saying: "With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility".
What naming conventions are people using for variables that hold JSON-serializable objects? We'd like the name of the variable to remind us to only store information in the object that can be serialized into JSON without losing information. Applications include HTTP sessions, non-searchable database columns, data logging, and serializing restorable application state.
The obvious contenders, at least from the perspective of someone programming in Javascript for node.js, seem to fall short:
prefixJSON - JSON is actually a serialization syntax, so this
would properly be a string in JSON format, not an object
prefixInfo - info is often used in node.js for any kind of map,
including ones that take functions and instances of ES6 classes.
prefixMap - Same issue as the info suffix
prefixData - Doesn't really suggest a constraint on the type
The best I can do is prefixJSONInfo, prefixJSONData, or prefixJSONObject, but I was hoping for something more succinct and readable. The prefix may be lengthy and descriptive too.
This question mainly applies to programming languages that support variant-type variables, such as Javascript. These variables are meant to hold a mishmash, but the programmer needs to be reminded to limit the types of values that are thrown into the mishmash.
In this case, it seems that a specific acronym might serve a good purpose.
JSONSerializable
written:
JSS or Jss
Examples:
prefixJss
customerDataJss
sessionInfoJss
Or maybe even:
JSONSerializableObject
prefixJSO
prefixJso
My $0.02. This might be more opinion based, as I don't think there are any globally accepted standards for these things. There are best practices, such as you mentioned (like short but descriptive). It's up to the developer or team to determine which short and descriptive versions they like (team preference).
Trust me tho, I understand how difficult naming things is sometimes. :)
A friend of mine drew my attention the welcome message of 4th European Lisp Symposium:
... implementation and application of
any of the Lisp dialects, including
Common Lisp, Scheme, Emacs Lisp,
AutoLisp, ISLISP, Dylan, Clojure,
ACL2, ECMAScript, ...
and then asked if ECMAScript is really a dialect of Lisp. Can it really be considered so? Why?
Is there a well defined and clear-cut set of criteria to help us detect whether a language is a dialect of Lisp? Or is being a dialect taken in a very loose sense (and in that case can we add Python, Perl, Haskell, etc. to the list of Lisp dialects?)
Brendan Eich wanted to do a Scheme-like language for Netscape, but reality intervened and he ended up having to make do with something that looked vaguely like C and Java for "normal" people, but which worked like a functional language.
Personally I think it's an unnecessary stretch to call ECMAScript "Lisp", but to each his own. The key thing about a real Lisp seems like the characteristic that data structure notation and code notation are the same, and that's not true about ECMAScript (or Ruby or Python or any other dynamic functional language that's not Lisp).
Caveat: I have no Lisp credentials :-)
It's not. It's got a lot of functional roots, but so do plenty of other non-lisp languages nowadays, as you pointed out.
Lisps have one remaining characteristic that make them lisps, which is that lisp code is written in terms of lisp data structures (homoiconicity). This is what enables lisps powerful macro system, and why it looks so bizzare to non-lispers. A function call is just a list, where the first element in the list is the name of the function.
Since lisp code is just lisp data, it's possible to do some extremely powerful stuff with metaprogramming, that just can't be done in other languages. Many lisps, even modern ones like clojure, are largely implemented in themselves as a set of macros.
Even though I wouldn't call JavaScript a Lisp, it is, in my humble opinion, more akin to the Lisp way of doing things than most mainstream languages (even functional ones).
For one, just like Lisp, it's, in essence, a simple, imperative language based on the untyped lambda calculus that is fit to be driven by a REPL.
Second, it's easy to embed literal data (including code in the form of lambda expressions) in JavaScript, since a subset of it is equivalent to JSON. This is a common Lisp pattern.
Third, its model of values and types is very lispy. It's object-oriented in a broad sense of the word in that all values have a concept of identity, but it's not particularly object-oriented in most narrower senses of the word. Just as in Lisp, objects are typed and very dynamic. Code is usually split into units of functions, not classes.
In fact, there are a couple of (more or less) recent developments in the JavaScript world that make the language feel pretty lispy at times. Take jQuery, for example. Embedding CSS selectors as a sublanguage is a pretty Lisp-like approach, in my opinion. Or consider ECMAScript Harmony's metaobject protocol: It really looks like a direct port of Common Lisp's (much more so than either Python's or Ruby's metaobject systems!). The list goes on.
JavaScript does lack macros and a sensible implementation of a REPL with editor integration, which is unfortunate. Certainly, influences from other languages are very much visible as well (and not necessarily in a bad way). Still, there is a significant amount of cultural compatibility between the Lisp and JavaScript camps. Some of it may be coincidental (like the recent rise of JavaScript JIT compilation), some systematic, but it's definitely there.
If you call ECMAScript Lisp, you're basically asserting that any dynamic language is Lisp. Since we already have "dynamic language", you're reducing "Lisp" to a useless synonym for it instead of allowing it to have a more specific meaning.
Lisp should properly refer to a language with certain attributes.
A language is Lisp if:
Its source code is tree-structured data, which has a straightforward printed notation as nested lists. Every possible tree structure has a rendering in the corresponding notation and is susceptible to being given a meaning as a construct; the notation itself doesn't have to be extended to extend the language.
The tree-structured data is a principal data structure in the language itself, which makes programs susceptible to manipulation by programs.
The language has symbol data type. Symbols have a printed representation which is interned: when two or more instances of the same printed notation for a symbol appear in the notation, they all denote the same object.
A symbol object's principal virtue is that it is different from all other symbols. Symbols are paired with various other entities in various ways in the semantics of Lisp programs, and thereby serve as names for those entities.
For instance, dialect of Lisp typically have variables, just like other languages. In Lisp, variables are denoted by symbols (the objects in memory) rather than textual names. When part of a Lisp program defines some variable a, the syntax for that a is a symbol object and not the character string "a", which is just that symbol's name for the purposes of printing. A reference to the variable, the expression written as a elsewhere in the program, is also an on object. Because of the way symbols work, it is the same object; this object sameness then connects the reference to the definition. Object sameness might be implemented as pointer equality at the machine level. We know that two symbol values are the same because they are pointers to the same memory location in the heap (an object of symbol type).
Case in point: the NewLisp dialect which has a non-traditional memory management for most data types, including nested lists, makes an exception for symbols by making them behave in the above way. Without this, it wouldn't be Lisp. Quote: "Objects in newLISP (excluding symbols and contexts) are passed by value copy to other user-defined functions. As a result, each newLISP object only requires one reference." [emphasis mine]. Passing symbols too, as by value copy, would destroy their identity: a function receiving a symbol wouldn't be getting the original one, and therefore not correctly receiving its identity.
Compound expressions in a Lisp language—those which are not simple primaries like numbers or strings—consist of a simple list, whose first element is a symbol indicating the operation. The remaining elements, if any, are argument expressions. The Lisp dialect applies some sort of evaluation strategy to reduce the expression to a value, and evoke any side effects it may have.
I would tentatively argue that lists being made of binary cells that hold pairs of values, terminated by a special empty list object, probably should be considered part of the definition of Lisp: the whole business of being able to make a new list out of an existing one by "consing" a new item to the front, and the easy recursion on the "first" and "rest" of a list, and so on.
And then I would stop right there. Some people believe that Lisp systems have to be interactive: provide an environment with a listener, in which everything is mutable, and can be redefined at any time and so on. Some believe that Lisps have to have first-class functions: that there has to be a lambda operator and so on. Staunch traditionalists might even insists that there have to be car and cdr functions, the dotted pair notation supporting improper lists, and that lists have to be made up of cells, and terminated by specifically the symbol nil denoting the empty list, and also a Boolean false. Insisting on car and cdr allows Scheme to be a Lisp, but nil being the list terminator and false rules
The more we shovel into the definition of "Lisp dialect", though, the more it becomes political; people get upset that their favorite dialect (perhaps which they created themselves) is being excluded on some technicality. Insisting on car and cdr allows Scheme to be a Lisp, but nil being the list terminator and false rules it out. What, Scheme not a Lisp?
So, based on the above, ECMAScript isn't a dialect of Lisp. However, an ECMAScript implementation contains functionality which can be exposed as a Lisp dialect and numerous such dialects have been developed. Someone who needs wants ECMAScript to be considered a Lisp for some emotional reasons should perhaps be content with that: that the semantics to support Lisp is there, and just needs a suitable interface to that semantics, which can be developed in ECMAScript and which can interoperate with ECMAScript code.
No it's not.
In order to be considered a Lisp, one has to be homoiconic, which ECMAscript is not.
Not a 'dialect'. I learned LISP in the 70's and haven't used it since, but when I learned JavaScript recently I found myself thinking it was LISP-like. I think that's due to 2 factors: (1) JSON is a list-like associative structures and (2) it's seems as though JS 'objects' are essentially JSON. So even though you don't write JS programs in JSON as you would write LISP in lists, you kind of almost do.
So my answer is that there are enough similarities that programmers familiar with LISP will be reminded of it when they use JavaScript. Statements like JS = LISP in a Java suit are only expressing that feeling. I believe that's all there is to it.
Yes, it is. Quoting Crockford:
"JavaScript has much in common with Scheme. It is a dynamic language. It has a flexible datatype (arrays) that can easily simulate s-expressions. And most importantly, functions are lambdas.
Because of this deep similarity, all of the functions in [recursive programming primer] 'The Little Schemer' can be written in JavaScript."
http://www.crockford.com/javascript/little.html
On the subject of homoiconicity, I would recommend searching that word along with JavaScript. Saying that it is "not homoiconic" is true but not the end of the story.
I think that ECMAScript is a dialect of LISP in the same sense that English is a dialect of French. There are commonalities, but you'll have trouble with assignments in one armed only with knowledge of the other :)
I find it interesting that only one of the three keynote presentations highlighted for the 4th European Lisp Symposium directly concerns Lisp (the other two being about x86/JVM/Python and Scala).
"dialect" is definitely stretching it too far. Still, as someone who has learned and used Python, Javascript, and Scheme, Javascript clearly has a far Lisp-ier feel to it (and Coffeescript probably even more so) than Python.
As for why the European Lisp Symposium would want to portray Javascript as a Lisp, obviously they want to piggyback on the popularity of the Javascript for which the programmer population is many, many times larger than all the rest of the Lisp dialects in their list combined.
Right to the point, in https://stackoverflow.com/questions/4696618/is-haskell-a-lisp?answertab=votes#tab-top, there is a comment by Kevin Cantu saying:
Yeah, moving beyond the syntax alone, JavaScript is probably more of
a Lisp than Haskell. (Originally conceived as a Scheme
implementation...)
Also, in Lambda the Ultimate: A Lisp to JavaScript Compiler in 100 Lines, they say:
It's immediately quite clear that JS and Lisp have strong ties at the
semantics level [...]
I am familiar with Lisp and functional programming, but not with JavaScript. So these propositions made wonder how powerful is JavaScript. What I've read so far is that it provides lambda expressions and closures. What more functional programming concepts and Lisp-like features does it provide? Does it provide, for instance, tail call recursion, or macros, or ability to manipulate code as data (like Lisp)?
Some things that JavaScript provides that can be considered "Lisp-like":
First class functions (inc. lambdas and closures)
Dynamic typing
Dynamic object model that has some similarities with CLOS
A readable data format that matches the source code format (JSON)
Run time evaluation with an "eval" function (that can be used in an interactive REPL)
Some things that Javascript doesn't have that are pretty common or central to other Lisps:
A homoiconic representation for both code and data (S-expressions)
Built in literals for linked lists / sequences
Support for immutable data structures in general (especially true for Clojure, where every data structure is persistent and immutable)
An extensive macro system for meta-programming
Optional static typing for performance optimisation (e.g. type hints in Common Lisp or Clojure)
Concurrency support
Tail call optimisation