W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > October 2017

Re: "Team" members wanted

From: Ruben Verborgh <Ruben.Verborgh@UGent.be>
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2017 13:37:29 +0000
To: Sebastian Samaruga <ssamarug@gmail.com>
CC: Krzysztof Janowicz <janowicz@ucsb.edu>, David Booth <david@dbooth.org>, W3C Semantic Web IG <semantic-web@w3.org>, Martynas Jusevičius <martynas@atomgraph.com>, "nathan@webr3.org" <nathan@webr3.org>
Message-ID: <FC9CC834-76F7-43AB-904B-0497785DFEF7@ugent.be>
> the problem is not the 'language' as long as it's turing complete and has the necessary libraries to work without re-inventing everything.

It depends on what we, as a community, want to achieve.

Yes, all of the aforementioned languages are Turing-complete,
so anything can be written in each of these languages.
Therefore, if the goal is “write application X”,
there's nothing that stops someone from writing that application.

However, it does depend on the definition of "someone”.
If they are Web developers… nope.
They don't do Java.

> Java has a strong set of libraries for working with almost any paradigm and is fundamentally well suited when looking for developers with experience in the language.


Don't get me wrong, Java is great
for many enterprise purposes
and behind-the-scenes work.

But for visible, front-facing applications?
Making the SemWeb available in JavaScript
seems crucial to have any chance of adoption.
Nobody runs Java applets anymore.

>> As you wish. To me what is unproductive and pointless is plugging JavaScript at every turn.

More productive would be writing JavaScript libraries :-)

>> https://hackernoon.com/how-it-feels-to-learn-javascript-in-2016-d3a717dd577f

That's assuming you have to know all the underlying technologies.
Most of the devs don't; they write high-level JavaScript,
which is exactly why we should make things easy for them.

Best,

Ruben
Received on Saturday, 28 October 2017 13:41:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Saturday, 28 October 2017 13:41:30 UTC