12 ms·
Because it's actually a decent language when you take away the DOM cruft? It's actually remarkably similar to Scheme [1] with very flexible arrays and real fir
by CoreDumpling 17y ago
Because it's actually a decent language when you take away the DOM cruft?
It's actually remarkably similar to Scheme [1] with very flexible arrays and real first-class functions.
[1] http://www.crockford.com/javascript/little.html http://www.crockford.com/javascript/little.html
- tumult 17y agoJavaScript programmers who have never used Scheme frequently repeat this patently false claim. Scheme has nothing in common with JavaScript other than that JavaScript has first-class functions.
- blasdel 17y agoEich's original LiveScript had sexpr reader syntax before the attack of the curly braces.
- tumult 17y agoEich's original LiveScript. We have something else, JavaScript. It does not have sexprs. It doesn't have continuations. It doesn't have tail call optimization. It has mutable array operations, but immutable string operations (got it backwards.) There are no macros, hygienic or otherwise. The only thing it has in common with Scheme are first-class functions. If you want anything else, you must implement it yourself out of the Turing Tarpit, and it will perform badly, because optimizing JavaScript is difficult due to its mistaken specification. By any of these metrics, Python, Ruby, Perl, and C# all have more in common with Scheme than JavaScript. I think the people claiming 'JavaScript is like Scheme but with a different syntax' are mistaken from lack of experience.