2 ms·

I agree that JavaScript is a very good thing to learn, but it seems odd that the article doesn't even mention server-side JS. Yes, jQuery is wonderful, but a la

I agree that JavaScript is a very good thing to learn, but it seems odd that the article doesn't even mention server-side JS. Yes, jQuery is wonderful, but a large share of the things that are getting people excited in the JS community lately revolve around Node, Socket.io, and other attempts to break JavaScript out of its DOM playground. Criticism aside, it's good to see articles like this. There are more subtleties to JS than a lot of people realize. Instead of getting frustrated and blaming the language when it doesn't behave like [insert favorite language here], one should take the time to study its fundamentals.

kennymeyers 16y ago
To be honest, that was implied. I only used client side as the beginning point because it's the one with the least amount of fuss to setup and the quickest reward. It was trying to be encouraging and encourage core JavaScript education. You should know that the server side technologies are a big piece of the inspiration for writing this. I'm sorry I didn't convey that correctly.
jasonlotito 16y ago
Fun fact: Server side JS isn't anything new. Back in the 90's, Netscape's web server had support for server side JS.