JavaScript might become two languages (and it's dramatic)

Summary

The video discusses the evolving landscape of JavaScript and the implications of integrating WebAssembly (Wasm) as a complementary technology. Concerns are raised about the potential complexity introduced by new features, which may prioritize developer convenience over user experience. The speaker critiques the reliance on tooling like Babel and suggests that the separation of 'JS sugar' from core JavaScript could confuse developers. Emphasizing the need for more robust support for browser developers, the video invites community input on whether these changes will ultimately benefit or hinder the JavaScript ecosystem.

Takeaways

• 😀 WebAssembly (Wasm) is an extension of JavaScript (JS), not a replacement, but concerns arise about features exclusive to Wasm.
• 🤔 Features like SIMD (Single Instruction, Multiple Data) are being limited to Wasm, potentially widening the gap between JS and Wasm capabilities.
• 🔧 The complexity of new language features can burden users rather than enhance their experience, highlighting a need for user-centered development.
• 📉 The current JS tooling ecosystem, including Babel, is unstable, raising concerns about its capacity to handle additional complexity.
• 📜 A potential separation of JS features into 'sugar' for tooling could lead to confusion, requiring developers to learn two versions of JS.
• 🛠️ There is apprehension about browser implementers shifting the responsibility of new feature integration onto third-party tools.
• 📈 Developers are calling for new proposals to offer clear, tangible benefits that improve workflows and enhance the user experience.
• ⚖️ Employers may become complacent, viewing proposals as unnecessary, which could stifle innovation within the ecosystem.
• 🔄 Developers are already moving away from non-standard features in TypeScript, illustrating a desire for more stable and standardized solutions.
• 😟 There are fears that the proposed changes could fundamentally alter how developers interact with JavaScript, necessitating careful consideration before implementation.

Q & A

What is the main concern regarding WebAssembly (Wasm) and JavaScript (JS) as discussed in the video?

The main concern is that WebAssembly is being developed as an extension of JavaScript, with some features being pushed exclusively for Wasm, potentially restricting developers who primarily use JavaScript.

What is SIMD, and why is its restriction to Wasm alarming?

SIMD stands for Single Instruction, Multiple Data, a technology that allows for parallel processing of data, often used in game engines. Its restriction to Wasm is alarming because it indicates a trend where essential features may not be accessible within JavaScript, limiting developers' capabilities.

What does Malti suggest regarding the complexity of frameworks like TypeScript and web components?

Malti suggests that frameworks should enhance functionality without overly complicating the platform, contrasting this with the perceived increase in complexity from the implementation of web components.

What is the proposed solution to the complexity problem in the language implementation?

The proposed solution is to separate new language features into a simpler syntax or 'sugar' that would be managed by tools like Babel instead of being implemented directly in the JavaScript language.

Why is there skepticism about the feasibility of the proposed solution?

Skepticism arises because the tooling ecosystem is already unstable and may not have the resources to handle new feature implementations in addition to existing changes, potentially slowing down development.

What challenges do developers face with current JavaScript tooling?

Developers face challenges due to constant changes in tooling, such as Babel, SWC, and others, which complicate the development process and may lead to instability in their development environments.

How could separating JavaScript from its 'sugar' features impact developers?

Separating JavaScript from its 'sugar' features could lead to confusion among developers, as they would need to differentiate between standard JavaScript and tool-specific syntax, increasing the complexity of learning and using JavaScript.

What concerns are raised about the complacency of employers towards new features?

There are concerns that employers are becoming complacent and view new feature proposals as unnecessary burdens, which could stifle innovation and the development of tools that could benefit users.

What implications could arise from shifting new JavaScript features to third-party tools?

Shifting new features to third-party tools could lead to security risks and stability issues, as these tools may not be subjected to the same rigorous standards as browsers, increasing the likelihood of bugs and vulnerabilities.

What is the speaker’s overall sentiment regarding changes to JavaScript and its ecosystem?

The speaker expresses concern that any significant changes to JavaScript should not be made lightly and emphasizes the need for clear benefits for both developers and users, highlighting the importance of maintaining a stable ecosystem.