proposals VS FizzBuzzEnterpris

target - Specifies the ECMAScript target version for the emitted JavaScript. Defaults to ES3. To ensure maximum compatibility, set this to the lowest version that your code requires to run. ESNext setting allows you to target the latest supported proposed features.

TC39

Current Status: You'd have to check the TC39 proposals repository or the official proposal text for the most recent status. As of my last update, it had not yet reached Stage 4 (final stage) of the TC39 process, which means it wasn't part of the ECMAScript specification yet.

More proposals can be found on the official GitHub page.

There were a couple of other proposals that made stage 1 too, can see here.

The working group most in charge of JS is ECMA's TC-39 (TC => Technical Committee) [0]. They've been taking a very deliberate, slow path to expanding the "standard" library because they take a very serious view of backwards compatibility on the web. Some proposals were shifted because of conflicts with ancient versions of things like MooTools still out in the wild, for instance. (This was the so-called "Smooshgate" incident [1].)

This may speed up a bit if the Built-In Modules proposal [2] passes, which would add a deliberate `import` URL for standard modules which would give a cleaner expansion point for new standard libraries over adding more global variables or further expanding the base prototypes (Object.prototype, Array.prototype, etc) in ways that increasingly likely have backwards compatibility issues.

TC-39 works all of their proposals in the open on Github [3] and it can be a fascinating process to watch if you are interested in the language's future direction.

[0] https://tc39.es/

[1] https://developers.google.com/web/updates/2018/03/smooshgate

[2] https://github.com/tc39/proposal-built-in-modules

[3] https://github.com/tc39/proposals

My biggest pointer would be to remember that Java & JavaScript aren't named that way by coincidence. They're two different approaches to a similar problem. Java suffers from Enterprise Development (eg: Enterprise FizzBuzz[0]), JavaScript suffers from Ultimate Accessibility (eg: how many questions on Stack Overflow conflated jQuery and JS?).

> How should exceptions be managed? [...] Has there been a debate about best practice? Where can I find it?

I suggest you handle the errors you can and otherwise let it crash.[1][2] Debates in NodeJS-land have steered towards more monadic/Result-like structures and working synchronous-looking try/catch onto async/await. NodeJS and its various components are open source, you'll have a lot of luck looking around on GH for issues & PRs related to a feature -- same for the language, ECMAScript[3] officially.[4]

Since you mentioned Clojure, have you looked at ClojureScript?[5] That may be a good entry to JS authors & articles you'd enjoy.

> I have the impression that NodeJS is a bit more magical than the JVM [...] Is that correct? Where are good resources on this subject?

As other replies have mentioned, you're really talking about V8[6] for the "JSVM" executing that code. A thing I've seen throw some people for a loop is how minimalist the specification actually is.[7] The magic in NodeJS is certainly from V8 and the rate of optimizations there but also libuv,[8] what actually powers the infamous event loop.

Hope that helps!

[0]: https://github.com/EnterpriseQualityCoding/FizzBuzzEnterpris...

[1]: Borrowing from Erlang, see Making reliable distributed systems in the presence of software errors, Joe Armstrong, page 104 "Error Handling Philosophy" https://erlang.org/download/armstrong_thesis_2003.pdf

[2]: _Most_ kinds of errors will cause the process to crash if you don't handle them, https://nodejs.org/dist/latest-v16.x/docs/api/errors.html . Promise rejections don't (yet) though it emits an error, and callback-based APIs will always consist of an [error, data] tuple for the arguments

[3]: https://github.com/tc39/proposals

[4]: Because Oracle owns the trademark, of course: http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=

[5]: https://clojurescript.org/

[6]: https://v8.dev/docs

[7]: "ECMAScript as defined here is not intended to be computationally self-sufficient; indeed, there are no provisions in this specification for input of external data or output of computed results. Instead, it is expected that the computational environment of an ECMAScript program will provide not only the objects and other facilities described in this specification but also certain environment-specific objects, whose description and behaviour are beyond the scope of this specification except to indicate that they may provide certain properties that can be accessed and certain functions that can be called from an ECMAScript program." https://tc39.es/ecma262/#sec-overview

[8]: https://github.com/libuv/libuv

> I'll answer your question with a question: Have you seen https://github.com/EnterpriseQualityCoding/FizzBuzzEnterpris... ? :)

You can write that kind of crap in any language, including C++.

There’s a difference between complexity that’s inherent to the problem, and complexity that’s added by developers who have drunk architectural cool aid.

This is an example where all of the complexity is caused by rigid adherence to the most popular architectural patterns of about 10 years ago.

https://github.com/EnterpriseQualityCoding/FizzBuzzEnterpris...

It looks completely ridiculous to modern eyes, but during peak OOP it was just how you should do it.

If you like simplicity then your fizz buzz implementation would be a few lines.

https://github.com/EnterpriseQualityCoding/FizzBuzzEnterpris... isn't too far removed from some of what I've seen in big tech, especially architecture-wise. Certainly less costly absurdity.

What you need is Fizzbuzz, Enterprise Edition

https://github.com/EnterpriseQualityCoding/FizzBuzzEnterpris...

It's been a decade since I used C# but the corporate design pattern culture of that language back then turned me off of it forever.

Everything looked like this: https://github.com/EnterpriseQualityCoding/FizzBuzzEnterpris...

Maybe it's better now but the Java/C# practice of shoveling largely empty classes around with an IDE isn't something I'd point to as a good example.

```

With your example I had to think for about 1-2 min before it made sense. If the codebase is full of clever stuff then I have to spend hours understanding all of the clever things before I can make changes. If everything is simple then it's easy to change.

If you want to see where overengineering leads you then take a look at this project. https://github.com/EnterpriseQualityCoding/FizzBuzzEnterpris...

It is satire but I have absolutely worked in places that write code like that.

Good programmers know that it's 10x times harder to read code than write it, so they deliberately keep it simple so that they can read it later.

I did something similar a 4 or so years back. I wrote something in a month (+ a couple of working with stakeholders to make sure it did what it should). I did it in a legacy tech stack that the architects didn't like, on the side of the main activity, as the deadline was coming close and some hireing processes were slow.

A team of around devs 5 (some coming and going) having been trying to solve the same problem since, but they're still not being close to finished.

In other words, the productivity is in the order 50x to 100x slower than when I did it. Rather, the main reason was that I knew how to write code like that, while they were set up to fail.

Basically, some architect was making all sorts of unnecessary demands for how to wite the code, and the programers were not familiar with much of the tech stack that was introduced.

Also, coding standards were really verbose, easily 10x-30x what I wrote, in lines of code. The current state of what they have look suspiciously like FizzBuzzEnterpriseEdition:

https://github.com/EnterpriseQualityCoding/FizzBuzzEnterpris...

TLDR; Incompetent tech leadership prone to cargo-culting, can slow down productivity to virtually zero. In some cases, productivity can go up by ~100x if ignoring their demands.

I swear I've worked with people who if they were shown FizzBuzzEnterpriseEdition wouldn't be able to see the joke as that's how they naturally write all code.

https://github.com/EnterpriseQualityCoding/FizzBuzzEnterpris...

Reminds me of FizzBuzzEnterpriseEdition . https://github.com/EnterpriseQualityCoding/FizzBuzzEnterpris...

You never know when you might need to change the implementation of how the "Fuzz" string is returned, so you need a FuzzStringReturner.

And you never know when you might need multiple different ways of returning "Fuzz", so you need a FuzzStringReturnerFactory.

And that barely scratches the surface of what you need.