In general, a scripting language for a software product (a “browser” being one of them) may be easily substituted in most cases. Because this integration always

In general, a scripting language for a software product (a “browser” being one of them) may be easily substituted in most cases. Because this integration always has a clear API border than can be retargeted to another scripting language in a straightforward way. E.g. vim text editor has vimscript as its main scripting environment, but may be compiled (in addition) with perl, python, lua, tcl, ruby interfaces. But guys who control web standards resisted for decades to suggestions for other languages, though it was fine to have flash/activex for the same period of time, until Apple killed it for good. Even JS “2.0” (a theoretical better but incompatible version of itself) had no chance, because reasons. Javascript is okayish generally, but its unusual parts come from the times when it was used as a glue between textual inputs and some~ data structures. Stroustrups’ phrase is just a stockholm syndrome (in his case self-induced). Edit: webassembly support is not really required to transpile anything to a browser, see asm.js