I don't like the idea of considering a language "good enough" and here's why. First off I must be careful and acknowledge that a language which changes at a pa

I don't like the idea of considering a language "good enough" and here's why. First off I must be careful and acknowledge that a language which changes at a pace faster than the body of programmers using it can safely absorb could be considered an anti-pattern. As it stands I'm not sure if JS fits this. Look at how Java has changed over the years. Back when it was created the syntax was appreciated by many as resembling C++ enough and being OO enough to be "good". Obviously there were many nits to pick by purists but programmers adopted the language and many people touted it. Java did not become popular because non-technical people were pushing it. Programmers liked it well enough. I was a religious zealot when it came to OO. Now I find myself loathing large OO systems and trying to write procedural functional code as often as possible and only using classes when necessary. The Java language has evolved to add lambdas, streams, etc.. Should Java have added lambdas or should it have stayed the way it was, "good enough"? Even if one is a programming paradigm zealot of any persuasion one must acknowledge that a great deal of production code was written just fine using only the early Java language features. Should we have stopped there? If code should be written first and foremost for programmers to understand and only incidentally for compilers to then it should stand to reason: as our collective understanding of how to express the behavior of a computer program evolves, so should the language(s).