V7 VS eslint-config-standard

I used such a succinct AST structure to implement a JavaScript parser and interpreter for a severely memory constrained environment (embedded): V7 (https://github.com/cesanta/v7)

We later switched to a ast->bytecode compilation step but for a while the implicit AST was directly traversed during interpretation.

Nice! A few years ago I took a stab at this problem space with https://github.com/cesanta/v7 ; with fun tricks like in-place compacting GC, stdlib JS object graph "frozen" in rom etc

https://github.com/cesanta/v7

Languages are not all equal nor do they all function in the same way, and that's not my opinion.

Javascript syntax itself is one thing, and you can certainly feel free to Javascriptify some C++ libraries and make it all look a certain way for specific tasks, while managing things behind the scenes, up to a point... but there is no getting around the fact that SOMEONE and some languages are needed to implement low level systems functionality.

the power of Cython or the Python C FFI is that it allows you to script/glue modular native code.

You then state "C++14 may have been ratified 7 years ago but it's not the target code your build chain spits out"

no, a C++ COMPILER spits out assembler code that then gets assembled and linked into an executable.

The C++ or C code corresponds directly to a given set of assembler instructions which correspond directly to CPU instructions.

You claim that Python programming of microcontrollers is mainstream, but this is not true nor possible. Python SCRIPTING of code modules (that cannot be written in Python) is certainly one way to assemble a system from pre-built legos.

If you refer to knowing what I'm talking about as gatekeeping and egoism, might I suggest that you insist less forcefully in the correctness of incorrect things you state? we could be done with this spat in short order if YOU would refrain from speaking falsehoods. lies.untrue things.

I look forward to your lisp c compiler. make sure that it's 100% lisp from the bottom up, or I'll consider you're having ceded my point. Consider that the lisp you author in has a garbage collection system that lisp cannot have written originally, nor has any semantics for the underlying memory structures of, but hey, I guess if one is committed to pretending that all languages are equal for all tasks, who am I to question ones self-identification with a given language.

eslint-config-standard

Based on your requirements and environment, answer the questions accordingly. At least with eslint version 8.0.1, you are only presented with 2 style guides: standard and XO. Personally, I prefer the standard styling guide but at any give time, it is a personal choice and as such feel free to choose any from a bunch of available options. Once all dependencies are installed, ensure that you have the following packages added as devDependencies to your project:

Hmm right, haven't found too many controversial things in https://github.com/standard/eslint-config-standard/blob/master/.eslintrc.json, besides no-semi fixed by semi-standard and comma-dangle "never" (sucks for git history, they should allow it for multiline cases https://eslint.org/docs/rules/comma-dangle#always-multiline)

ESLint plugin for StandardJS; allows you to format code as StandardJS, but clear more serious errors too.

The JS Open Source Community is filled with people grifting things like this. Quite notably, there's a linter called JS Standard Style, which actually has nothing to do with JS Standards.

It's marketed as if it was a standard, the fact that it isn't is tucked away in the readme, and also -- the entire project is just a wrapper around someones .eslintrc file, yet barely any credit is given to the ESLint devs who do all the work.

Go ahead and read the readme here, https://github.com/standard/standard. Could you genuinely tell this wasn't really a JS Standard at a glance? Could you tell this was just a config file for someone elses work? None of the donations go upstream to eslint by the way.

Hell, the actual config file is hidden inside a sub repo:

https://github.com/standard/eslint-config-standard

which has the audacity to claim

> This module is for advanced users. You probably want to use standard instead :)

It's a config file for someone elses program! Why does this library go through so much effort to hide that it's just someones config file? Why on earth is it called JS Standard Style?

The whole community is filled with slimy nonsense like this.

Eslint is the default linter. Standard is a curated list of rules with good quality.

https://github.com/standard/eslint-config-standard

I would start with that and tweak what you don't like

Well done, we managed to set up ESLint using Airbnb’s JavaScript styling guide to our newly created Next.js project. You could have used another popular styling guide like Google, Standard, or even create your own to your liking.