Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login

There's something horribly wrong with everything about this. Why is such a smart person as Crockford wasting his time arguing about semicolons in 2012? Why is this at the top of the most popular hacker website? Why are people writing detailed opinions about semicolons in this thread (with surely more to come?)

One would hope that at least over time the bike sheds being argued about would start to at least evolve into arguments about bike garages and eventually bike factories. But I guess the bike shed is forever a bike shed, as long as we're making bikes.

Whatever the next disruption is in software engineering, please dear God let it be immune-by-design to this type of distraction.




Jacob ("fat") comes off looking far worse than Crockford, to my eyes (and that Kit character seems to be 7 years old). It's the arrogance and stupidity of youth facing the crotchety crankiness of experience. Crockford has earned the right to have a strong opinion here IMO.

But it's not just bike-shedding. It's more pernicious than that. It's actually something that looks like bike-shedding to uninformed observers, but something that strongly affects cross-version compatibility. Javascript does automatic semicolon insertion by taking advantage of potentially ambiguous constructs that happen to be resolved in one way right now. But they may be actually ambiguous in the future - in the case where a unary prefix operator becomes a binary operator. Language extension usually works this way: a previously unambiguously wrong statement is made valid; but JS semicolon insertion often turns "wrong" statements into "correct" statements, so it leaves less "entropy" to be taken advantage of when increasing the power of the syntax. I think there's a strong case for JS to not insert semicolons here, and I agree with Crockford's position on not handling it in JSMin. It's the right thing to do.


I have never written a line of JS in my life, which hopefully qualifies me as an unbiased outsider, but I don't agree that that Crockford's position here on JSMin is the right thing to do.

Here is what I see:

@fat is not inserting "!" needlessly as a statement separator. The "!" is there for its proper purpose, as a "unary not" operation, which will short circuit the second operand of the "&&" when isActive is false.

Given that, @fat has left out a semicolon in a way that is perfectly legitimate based on this language specification, at least as described in the 5.1 version linked from here: http://inimino.org/~inimino/blog/javascript_semicolons).

Could @fat have written the code differently so that he would have been required to include the ";"? Perhaps -- but I don't see why that counterfactual has any particular bearing here.

Crockford's own page on JSMin <http://www.crockford.com/javascript/jsmin.html>; claims: "JSMin is a filter that omits or modifies some characters. This does not change the behavior of the program that it is minifying."

The fact is that @fat's code is legal code and JSMin is breaking it.

IMHO, Crockford is ignoring the technical matters at hand. @fat cannot be faulted for writing code that complies with the specification and for having a reasonable expectation that code minimizers will preserve the semantics of his legal code. Crockford (and others) may wish that the language specification did not include automatic semicolon insertion because it does hamper making changes in the language without breaking existing code -- but that does not make this piece of code "insanely stupid".

Yes, forward progress on the language would be better served if automatic semicolon insertion rules weren't in the specification. However, calling one particular piece of code that leverages those rules "insanely stupid" and refusing to acknowledge that JSMin is in fact breaking the semantics of the code is not productive. Refusing to fix this in JSMin does not somehow make the problem with the specification to go away.


Here is what you're missing.

Language lawyering is fine and dandy when you know exactly which compiler will be used and you know exactly how it works.

But on the web that isn't the case. You can write code, but you have no control over what browsers, past, present and future, it will get run on. And it is your responsibility to make that work. According to the spec, you may be right. But in practice you're the one who is wrong, because you're the one whose job it is to make your code work across browsers and future versions of the spec.


Crockford is releasing a tool which is compatible with his opinions, not with JavaScript. All browsers execute that code fine, present and past, and at least for the next decade or so.

Crockford can be an arrogant ass about this stuff, that's why jshint exists, because not agreeing with Crockford does not mean bad JavaScript, no matter what he would have you believe


It's about JSMin, not JSLint. Crockford has actually several products ;-) And JSMin is IMHO not really opinionated.


In this case, it's not language lawyering. All JavaScript environments "do the right thing" with regards to ASI -- it works in all target environments as of the present day. JSMin is not a target environment, it is a minifier that happens to express some strongly-held opinions of its author.

That said, it's hard to program to a spec that does not (officially) exist yet, and doubly so if there's not clear "opt-in/out" path for future versions. Since, as a developer, I can't control what the committee adds or removes from the spec, or what they might break, I can only do the best I can with the language as it is -- not breaking existing code in future versions of the language is the committee's job.


If JSMin is not among their target environments, they should not use it.


The code in question does work across browsers.

Arguing about future version of the spec is silly. For all we know the next Javascript spec turns it into a Lisp, and 100% of existing code is broken.

JSMin is breaking working, spec compliant, cross browser compatible code. How is that not broken?


No one ever earns the right to be a jerk. Crockford can have a strong opinion all he wants, but if he wants people to continue looking up to him, he will explain and conduct himself in a civil and professional manner.

No one won in this situation, but Crockford should know better by now.


Semi-colons aside, you never earn the right to be an ass.


That's correct. Being an ass is a God-given right--you don't have to earn it.


[deleted]


I'm uninterested in any specifics, actually; I'm more interested in how much of the syntax landscape is cut off for future extension, particularly at the expression level.

It's one thing to insert semicolons in this case:

  <ident> <op> <ident> <op> <ident>
  <keyword>
and another to do so in this kind of case:

  <ident> <op> <ident>
  <op> <ident>
The former is unlikely to be problematic for future extension, but the latter more so. The general pattern in Algol-derived languages is for all statements (except for expressions, including assignments and procedure calls) to begin with a keyword. This substantially reduces ambiguity - semicolons are mostly redundant in this situation - and it seems to me to be a fine place in JS to automatically insert them.

Another distinctive feature of Algol-derived languages is that two adjacent expressions are generally not meaningful; for example, <ident> <ident> is not usually a valid expression sequence in Pascal, C, etc. (and in the presence of typedefs, it is actually a concrete problem when trying to parse C declarations, often requiring communication between lexer and parser to turn typedef identifiers into keywords for the purpose of parsing[1]). This in turn creates freedom for creating new keywords unambiguously, by including whitespace in the "keyword" (actually two words). But JS foregoes some of this, because <ident> \n <ident> will have a semicolon inserted on the line break. It's not too bad though, because new two-word "keywords" are not usually broken over two lines; but long expressions almost always extend over multiple lines at some point.

Do you see what I'm getting at here?

[1] http://calculist.blogspot.co.uk/2009/02/c-typedef-parsing-pr... has what seems to be a reasonable overview of this problem.


[deleted]


No, we should not. We should look at principles, because principles are what guide us on judging specifics.

If you don't understand why I take this approach, you will never understand my position.


The 'latest revision of the future specification' you link to is, I think, the set of things the TC39 group has considered and agreed on. The list of things they are currently considering is in the strawman namespace[1] on that wiki. In particular, the "strawman:concurrency" page[2] currently says:

The infix “!” operator: An eventual analog of “.“, for making eventual requests look more like immediate requests.

[1]: http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:strawman [2]: http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:concurrency


[deleted]


> But... surely that code is far more "insanely stupid[-looking]" than the first...?

I don't think anyone is arguing that x\n!p is a good way to write code. Crockford is pointing out that ASI will not occur when ! is an infix operator.


... Crockford is the developer of JSMin, and was explicitly dragged into the conversation because people claim (possibly correctly) that it is a bug in JSMin than when it is given code with semi-colons that are missing in places that the JavaScript specification claims are optional (possibly also stupidly), it generates output that is not semantically equivalent to the original code.

Your statement thereby makes no sense: this is precisely the kind of argument and conversation--a bug report from a user that itself can be construed as a question about what the purpose of the project is and what parts of the specification it will choose to support--that one would hope the primary maintainer of a project should be "wasting his time" involving himself with.


I wasn't literally asking why is this happening. I was pointing out that it's sad that we live in a world where someone like Crockford is spending brain cycles talking about semicolons, regardless of the reason.


In the big picture, I agree that everything about the GitHub thread, meta or not, is terrible.

But any author of a language minification library will have to deal with corner cases. I see no easy way out. Would it be better for Crockford not to have started writing JSMin?


I would hardly call this an "argument" from Crockford. There is absolutely no back-and-forth. Crockford is told there is a bug (or perhaps, a missing feature) in his software. Crockford responds that he will not change his code, and that the first guy's code is bad. Other commenters then begin arguing, but Crockford does not.


he eventually capitulated and fixed his broken parser: https://github.com/douglascrockford/JSMin/commit/5ca277ea452...


I found the whole discussion quite sad, the stupid animated GIFs in particular. I became even more sad when I noticed the discussion is being held on GitHub, not Reddit or 4chan.

Scrolled through, won't participate. I'd much rather build interesting application.


I wonder when bug tracking sites are going to block reddit referrers (or just prevent them from posting). I've seen this before in comments to PHP bugs and bugzilla bugs.


I disagree. Imho a little infantile humor in places where it "doesn't belong" can be quite refreshing - as long as it remains the exception rather than the rule.

People tend to have pretty stiff sticks up their arses in such discussions.

Humor, even toilet humor, can remove fear and remind everyone that a debate over a semicolon is not necessarily a life/death situation.


No, it's just noise.

It's like someone yelling and acting up when other people are talking about something important to them, just because that person is bored and doesn't care about the topic.

If you are bored, go somewhere else.

And the net result _every_ single time is that the bug gets locked so no one can post to it. Sometimes they unlock it again after the reddit idiots have left.


I said something same-ish, but it seems HN is full of true professionals, with no place for humor in their work --or internet procrastination time--, that never read MAD magazine as kids...


How do you know it was Redditors?

I subscribe to quite a few programming related subreddits and while the comments there are more informal (people can make a joke without getting downvoted, for instance) the level of the discussion you're referring to is not very representative of programming subreddits either.


I felt the same way. Once I got to @pyalot actually belittling @shawnpresser's JSMin fix, I realized just how religious and immature this debate had become.


So, how does it work for you, this missing out on all the (trivial sometimes) fun?


I feel bad for anyone who considers this sort of thing "fun"


This is one of the many reasons why I love Go's pragmatism. gofmt is the end of all this kind of silly unproductive arguments.

The sad thing is that apparently some programmers take this stuff so seriously that they refuse to learn a language that wont let them use their pet brace style or whatever. I wonder how they collaborate with other programmers or if they would reject a job offer from a company that used the wrong coding style.

P.S.: Also Go's syntax manages to keep code semicolon-free while avoiding the pitfalls of JavaScript.


Why?

This unfortunate behavior is well described by Wadler's Law:

http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Wadlers_Law


This is great, thanks. The only logical conclusion is that engineers should be choosing tools that have the least syntactical surface area to argue over. :)


Whatever you do, don't go looking for the discussions that happened around scheme r6rs...


Berners Lee's 'principle of least power'?


Assembler? ;)


Brainfk, clearly.


Few people truly understand the semantics of a language, but everyone knows why indexing from 1 is bad.


... that is, for some values of "everyone" ;)


jep, see Eiffel. Convention is indexing from 1. (but it allows you to do it in whatever way you want, start from 3 if you want, because hey why not -.-)


What's wrong with it? It's like arguing about grammar. We've been going back and forth on the Oxford Comma for at least 300 years now, with no end in sight.


I'm just barely suppressing an urge to rant on the obvious superiority of the Oxford Comma, which I suppose means you are absolutely right.


Look, I know the rules. That's why I leave the comma out.


Whatever the next disruption is in software engineering, please dear God let it be immune-by-design to this type of distraction.

While your sentiment is positive, wouldn't this mean either designing things in a rigid, unambiguous manner (think C's semicolons) or changing human nature? Ambiguous choices plus human nature equals debates. An argument about semicolons does seem silly and your proposed outcome sounds nice, but how could we get there?


You say "rigid, unambiguous manner" as if it was something bad, not agile, boring or uncool. I disagree with this way to present things. A good computer language should have a solid unambiguous syntax (think lisp), upon which we can build agile tools and avoid the daily useless messes we get from JavaScript.

Edit: rm js rant


My point wasn't that arguments are avoidable altogether. It was simply that one would hope the arguments would evolve in complexity or at the very least change in specifics. Since that doesn't seem to be happening, and the same old tired topics keep coming up, I think it's important that designers of future software engineering tools consider how immune their systems are to the grab bag of arguments we've been hearing since the 1970s about syntax and semantics.


We already have something akin to that - Python (PEP 8 specifically). People still find things to argue about though, presumably because they enjoy it. On the upside, it happens less often!


Whilst fat doesn't come off great he has youth and inexperience on his side.

Someone like Crockford with his 'years of experience' opening the debate by saying this kid's code is 'insanely stupid' is the real disappointment for me here.

Not to mention the memes and pictures being posted further down in the thread. I hope it's a matter of time before github comes up with a way to flag these.


Well, yeah. That's a large part of the reason I don't like the hype around JavaScript.

"Here is a feature. Don't ever use it. Here is a simple way to do this. This way is dumb, use a 2321 line library instead. There is nothing wrong with X, you just chose one of the 60 wrong ways of using it."

I don't want to think about this kind of stuff, I have enough to worry about as it is. JavaScript is all right as a language of the present, but I really don't want it to be "the future", like many people paint it to be.


While whether or not to use them when designing a language is bikeshedding, JavaScript already has so pitfalls caused by semicolon insertion, their use is a must.


I'm curious what these pitfalls are, and how using semicolons fixes the problem.



Yes/no/sort of, I actually found this an quite enlightening discussion. My opinion went from:

1. I'm going to use three semicolons for every one Fat doesn't use, the arrogant twat! ;-)

2. Bike shed.

3. Some of these arguments actually kind of make sense... I Prefer the semicolonlessness of Python as well. But even though I know the ASI rules, I don't want to spend the mental effort to check every line for unwanted continuation.

4. And then someone linked to http://npmjs.org/doc/coding-style.html#Semicolons which is a style that has marginally more semicolons than Fat would (apparently) use, but I can use this pretty much without thinking.

I might give it a go. See how it feels. It's important to not stick to old conventions just because KIDS THESE DAYS.

If you never hear from me again, it's because I've drowned in an ocean of obscure bugs.


> There's something horribly wrong with everything about this.

The time is ripe for Dart!


Or to give back JavaScript its original syntax.

edit: now that I said that, it makes a lot of sense.


>There's something horribly wrong with everything about this. Why is such a smart person as Crockford wasting his time arguing about semicolons in 2012?

The disturbing thing is the idiot arguing about implicit semicolons in a language with not good support for them, in a general use library.


Thanks for the donwvoting, at least Brendan Eich and Douglas Cockford agree with me...

http://brendaneich.com/2012/04/the-infernal-semicolon/




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: