3 ms·

Not sure about that. With regards to Browsers, we are only given ONE language to work with, and that is JavaScript. So there is no bandwagon effect, I think ev

Not sure about that. With regards to Browsers, we are only given ONE language to work with, and that is JavaScript. So there is no bandwagon effect, I think everyone is just trying to work with the language they are given. But the fact that there are transpilers (Coffeescript, Typescript, Clojurescript, etc) means that people want to move away or improve JavaScript. Now that WebAssembly is being worked on is a big relief. We now have options on what language we think would be best for the job.

sidlls 10y ago
Certainly, but all of these things are nascent or not adopted with sufficient volume to assert a de facto standard. In that sense I think "JS is the 'only' thing available for the front-end" isn't unfair. As regards the backend, I don't think it's justifiable that anybody would actually choose JavaScript. There are far better, more stable options. The only reasons, as I see it, to choose JS for the backend are to cheap out on developer spend or to follow a fad. "Isomorphic development" falls in the one or both of these. Excellent, highly (Google) scalable products have been produced without that for two decades now. Asserting it is just, in my opinion, a way to mask one or both of the other reasons.