Trash “Admitting like this has a bunch of quirks, but it’s still great.” (not arguing for it though) Criticism is a driving force behind change to the better.

Trash “Admitting like this has a bunch of quirks, but it’s still great.” (not arguing for it though) Criticism is a driving force behind change to the better. Calling something “great” without pointing out great sides I find… pointless and harmful. To name a few great points, distinct from other languages: JS has a pretty shameless object model, where you (usually) have ordered keys, and every key is a property with an {enumerable, writable, configurable, get, set} descriptor. It is much more usable and practical than in almost all other languages. (They do that for “efficiency”, but that’s non-sequitur) JS has very useful destructuring syntax, which many languages lack of and that leads to assignment bloating and boredom. Also, jit optimizes out temporary objects, so foo({x, y}) / function foo({x, y}) works almost at the same speed as foo(x, y). JS has a nice Function type, which allows easier metaprogramming and substitution of ‘this’ object. Functions are objects, so you can function foo() {}; foo.x = 1; console.log(foo.name, foo.x). JS bare objects may have methods and properties: t={_x:1, get_x(){return this._x}, …} JS doesn’t treat syntactic lists in a last-value-only way, so you can expect foo(…a, …b, c) to work, and to work as intended. E.g. Lua cannot do that, and python (afair) requires you to collect items into a single array (not sure, correct me if I’m wrong). But what people usually mean by “great” is “it generally works”. I know it is an american thing, but some aspects of js, including those you meet everyday, are really just trashy. It would be nice to not have them at all.