> This doesn't seem to add much besides having to install `tsc` or `ts-node` and also not having the choice of the TypeScript compiler version you use.
Depends on your point of view. With TypeScript being built in, you don't have to think about using tsc or whatever version of TypeScript you have. It's just what version of Deno you use. If someone doesn't like that, then they still can have the option of using TypeScript by itself.
> Node.js has a `global` global object and the only API I would understand having in common with the `window` object is the `fetch()` API.
It also supports `addEventListener`, which is commonly used by browser code on the window object.
Just the existence of something defined as `window` makes more sense than a `global` which never existed in browsers in the first place.
> Sandboxing is so basic that any large project will have to enable all permissions.
That's pretty dismissive. Why should an app that doesn't interact with the file system be allowed to write or even read from it? I don't know how this feature can be considered a drawback. Don't like it? Don't use it. I don't see how it detracts objectively from Deno.
> I would consider this a disadvantage.
Then you can still use NPM. Others of us get the option to just import packages from a URL instead of publishing it to a central repository.
> Again, I would say that this is rarely useful in a world where a lot of operations use container technology.
Why? Building Docker images requires extra software, Linux images, time spent running apt-get or apk, time spent downloading and installing your runtime of choice, and so forth. Having Deno build a binary can give you a bit of a shortcut in that you have one tool for running and bundling code, and you don't need to deal with as many OS-level nuances to do so. Docker and k8s are there for anyone who needs something beyond that.
> This is trivially solved by anonymous self-executing functions
That's your opinion. Just promise me you don't go on to say that JS is a bad language, because people keep saying that yet are opposed to reducing complexity they consider "trivial". If using IIFE for the mere purpose of accessing syntax makes more sense to you than making `await` syntax available, then I really don't know what to tell you. What exactly is the argument for not implementing this feature besides "all you have to do is type some extra characters", to loosely paraphrase you.
> I think that this is the strongest advantage, however I would argue that this is not a reason to start a completely new backend platform. Also, I think that it might be a disadvantage in some high performance scenarios because Promises are much, much slower than callbacks currently.
> I think that this is the strongest advantage, however I would argue that this is not a reason to start a completely new backend platform. Also, I think that it might be a disadvantage in some high performance scenarios because Promises are much, much slower than callbacks currently.
I honestly have to wonder if you are joking. This is exactly why people invent new backends, new libraries, and new languages.
My only response to your point about Promises is that perhaps one shouldn't be using JavaScript if Promises are that much of a bottleneck. What you're saying is totally valid, though.
On the sandbox part, you can use workers to offload risky code. There is cost to doing it but it can be minimal depending on what you are using it for.
> That's pretty dismissive. Why should an app that doesn't interact with the file system be allowed to write or even read from it? I don't know how this feature can be considered a drawback. Don't like it? Don't use it. I don't see how it detracts objectively from Deno.
Because any app of a medium size and above will require access to all permissions. Also Deno had some obvious security vulnerabilities around symbolic links for example which really detracts from the supposed security goal.
> Why? Building Docker images requires extra software, Linux images, time spent running apt-get or apk, time spent downloading and installing your runtime of choice, and so forth. Having Deno build a binary can give you a bit of a shortcut in that you have one tool for running and bundling code, and you don't need to deal with as many OS-level nuances to do so. Docker and k8s are there for anyone who needs something beyond that.
But you are going to need some kind of operating system image anyway due to other tools that will need to live with your app like log shipping, load balancers, DNS caches, firewalls, daemons, etc.
So in the end you will need to describe this somewhere and why not also describe the dependencies of your apps at the same time.
> If using IIFE for the mere purpose of accessing syntax makes more sense to you than making `await` syntax available, then I really don't know what to tell you.
If using IIFE is so heavy that a new backend platform needs to be built I don't know what to tell you.
In the apps I see, there is exactly one top level IIFE that is needed in the whole application.
> This is exactly why people invent new backends, new libraries, and new languages.
New libraries yes, new languages no. The util.promisify() already makes 90% of the cases work painlessly and some promise wrappers for existing core libraries already exist on top of that. Since core is moving to promises slowly anyways I fail to see how this advantage will carry on being one in the future.
> My only response to your point about Promises is that perhaps one shouldn't be using JavaScript if Promises are that much of a bottleneck.
Yup, that's absolutely true. I would say that there is always an advantage in having leeway in a programming language between the convenient option and the fast option so that when something becomes a bottleneck you have easier options than porting it to another language. But of course this might not be the most common case.
> due to other tools that will need to live with your app like log shipping, load balancers, DNS caches, firewalls, daemons, etc.
some apps are just CLI tools.
Top-level await helps with the rigidity of the ES module systems[1]; I believe they can also be used with dynamics imports giving ES-modules and CommonJS similar expressivity
Depends on your point of view. With TypeScript being built in, you don't have to think about using tsc or whatever version of TypeScript you have. It's just what version of Deno you use. If someone doesn't like that, then they still can have the option of using TypeScript by itself.
> Node.js has a `global` global object and the only API I would understand having in common with the `window` object is the `fetch()` API.
It also supports `addEventListener`, which is commonly used by browser code on the window object.
Just the existence of something defined as `window` makes more sense than a `global` which never existed in browsers in the first place.
> Sandboxing is so basic that any large project will have to enable all permissions.
That's pretty dismissive. Why should an app that doesn't interact with the file system be allowed to write or even read from it? I don't know how this feature can be considered a drawback. Don't like it? Don't use it. I don't see how it detracts objectively from Deno.
> I would consider this a disadvantage.
Then you can still use NPM. Others of us get the option to just import packages from a URL instead of publishing it to a central repository.
> Again, I would say that this is rarely useful in a world where a lot of operations use container technology.
Why? Building Docker images requires extra software, Linux images, time spent running apt-get or apk, time spent downloading and installing your runtime of choice, and so forth. Having Deno build a binary can give you a bit of a shortcut in that you have one tool for running and bundling code, and you don't need to deal with as many OS-level nuances to do so. Docker and k8s are there for anyone who needs something beyond that.
> This is trivially solved by anonymous self-executing functions
That's your opinion. Just promise me you don't go on to say that JS is a bad language, because people keep saying that yet are opposed to reducing complexity they consider "trivial". If using IIFE for the mere purpose of accessing syntax makes more sense to you than making `await` syntax available, then I really don't know what to tell you. What exactly is the argument for not implementing this feature besides "all you have to do is type some extra characters", to loosely paraphrase you.
> I think that this is the strongest advantage, however I would argue that this is not a reason to start a completely new backend platform. Also, I think that it might be a disadvantage in some high performance scenarios because Promises are much, much slower than callbacks currently.
> I think that this is the strongest advantage, however I would argue that this is not a reason to start a completely new backend platform. Also, I think that it might be a disadvantage in some high performance scenarios because Promises are much, much slower than callbacks currently.
I honestly have to wonder if you are joking. This is exactly why people invent new backends, new libraries, and new languages.
My only response to your point about Promises is that perhaps one shouldn't be using JavaScript if Promises are that much of a bottleneck. What you're saying is totally valid, though.