Works for me! Very much matches the MO I've been using as "JS is wild, ain't it great!," so I tend to agree with the shown perspective.
I also think a huge amount of these tend to be pretty typical conservative-developer overconcern (see Yegge's Notes From The Mystery Machine Bus https://gist.github.com/cornchz/3313150), governing yourself on fear, that is probably not really as fully warranted or deserved.
But I'm also a huge fan of wild & fun & diversity. I also love that we try & do other things, that programming languages are not a Last Man Standing situation, & that we have great technical ecosystems with caring trying folks finding new ways to move forward & progress like Elixer. I look forward to seeing what lessons there prove really valuable (and perhaps aping them)! It's a choice in JS world but I do use immutable.js, for example, and it's great & as described as an advantage above. Ditto for some fp tools, but often I will mutate & use effectual/imperative styles, I often find there are significant performance or understandabity wins.
I would say, yes, the cost of talking vs snarking may be real, but it doesn't have to be this large & well examined a list as you've madd. I don't like JS, the amount of dependencies terrifies me. I don't like JS, it's too fragmented. I'd rather use Elixer, I like having a good actor model underpinning my ecosystem. Sharing some sort of tidbit can help calibrate where a person is & turn destructive contagious negativity into healthy discourse.
I forgot to reply to this comment but I did like it.
I don't actually hate JS. It's possible to write great JS. (And honestly, things like Elm do exist, and Svelte looks pretty amazing, but these also have their cost.) The failing for me is that there's nothing stopping anyone, especially a library I might decide to depend on, from writing bad JS. This was the same problem I had with Ruby. We spent all this time aiming for thread safety in our app (a whole team spent a lot of time on it) and it turns out the 2 culprits were 2 libs we depended on, because Ruby simply makes no guarantees about thread safety (and cannot, because it's mutable, thus making forking either expensive or dangerous). That and probably a few other things burned me enough to make me say "no more" and I suddenly loved the idea of a language where "thread safety" is completely a given and impossible to violate and you don't have to mutex-lock everything.
I don't think FP will ever get popular, unfortunately, unless we NEVER teach ANYONE ANYTHING but FP, because the people that pay the cost of learning the FP way are paying it because of all the ways they got burned by the non-FP (OOP, imperative, mutable) ways...
If you ever get there yourself, you have my hat-tip. And truly, it is worth the journey.
I also think a huge amount of these tend to be pretty typical conservative-developer overconcern (see Yegge's Notes From The Mystery Machine Bus https://gist.github.com/cornchz/3313150), governing yourself on fear, that is probably not really as fully warranted or deserved.
But I'm also a huge fan of wild & fun & diversity. I also love that we try & do other things, that programming languages are not a Last Man Standing situation, & that we have great technical ecosystems with caring trying folks finding new ways to move forward & progress like Elixer. I look forward to seeing what lessons there prove really valuable (and perhaps aping them)! It's a choice in JS world but I do use immutable.js, for example, and it's great & as described as an advantage above. Ditto for some fp tools, but often I will mutate & use effectual/imperative styles, I often find there are significant performance or understandabity wins.
I would say, yes, the cost of talking vs snarking may be real, but it doesn't have to be this large & well examined a list as you've madd. I don't like JS, the amount of dependencies terrifies me. I don't like JS, it's too fragmented. I'd rather use Elixer, I like having a good actor model underpinning my ecosystem. Sharing some sort of tidbit can help calibrate where a person is & turn destructive contagious negativity into healthy discourse.