5 ms·

I disagree. Having a common language in many places has led to huge improvements over the board in the JS ecosystem, it's become the "C" of the modern era, and

• pjmlp 10y ago
  Which is anything but positive, as it also shares C's style of unsafety due to its semantics.
  • oldrny 10y ago
    Javascript performs unchecked memory accesses? Or are you alluding to their both being weakly typed?
    • pjmlp 10y ago
      No,but implicit conversions, including from operators into numeric values isn't much better. The amount of page differences between "JavaScript the good parts" and the actual language reference speaks for itself.
      • Oxitendwe 10y ago
        One might argue the same point based on the fact that there even exists a book called "JavaScript: The Good Parts".
      • notgood 10y ago
        That book was created before many alternatives came out; now if you are working in a team project you should look at JavaScript the same way you look at assembler, you know it will be the final thing but you shouldn't be creating it directly, but instead "compiling" from TypeScript, ELM, etc. (langs with no implicit conversions, strong typing, etc)
        • pjmlp 10y ago
          Those alternatives are nice in startup land, in enterprise consulting land, we get to use what the customer IT department sanctions as allowed programming languages and tools installed on computers for external consultants.
  • taeric 10y ago
    Which is ultimately irrelevant here. Consider, C is rock solid safe compared to machine/assembly. (Though, I tend to share the annoyance of javascript...)
    • pjmlp 10y ago
      C is just as unsafe as Assembly, as the weekly CVE entries prove. The only differences between C and a powerful macro assembler like MASM, is that C is portable across CPU architectures and exposes less internals. Rock solid? With all the UB that Assembly actually doesn't have, and the types of memory corruption issues shared with Assembly programming, not really.
      • taeric 10y ago
        My point is that safety or otherwise of the target language is just not relevant. Even C has compile errors if you use the wrong type for an operation. Assembly largely does not. Taken to the extreme, any language ultimately goes down to machine code. So if it was a relevant fact, it would be relevant for all languages.
        • pjmlp 10y ago
          > Even C has compile errors if you use the wrong type for an operation. Assembly largely does not. There are strong typed assemblers, e.g. IBM i. Also Assemblers don't remove code under your feet, like optimizing C compilers with their UB tricks happen to do, introducing security bugs.