7 ms·

Bruce Eckel on JavaScript

78 points by tbassetto 15y ago

Hrundi 15y ago
> JaveScript is an Abomination Ouch
- demallien 15y ago
  Sure, but the guy freely admits that he is not yet very experienced with Javascript. My own personal experience with it was definitely love/hate for the first 6 months or so, but once I started figuring out what idiomatic Javascript looks like, it started seducing me. My current project is a roughly 50/50 split of Javascript and C - at the start I preferred to do things in C if possible, and avoid Javascript, but now the reverse is true.
  - sorbits 15y ago
    Same guy also did a hasted post criticizing Ruby¹ so I wouldn’t really put anything into his “first look” at a programming language. ¹ He removed his first post and did a less negative follow-up: http://www.artima.com/weblogs/viewpost.jsp?thread=146091 http://www.artima.com/weblogs/viewpost.jsp?thread=146091
  - macavity23 15y ago
    My JavaScript experience was similar. I blame it on the name, stupid as that sounds, because the first thought of a newbie is likely to be 'Oh, this is like Java'. As JavaScript syntax is similar to Java at a glance, this leads one to try and write Java-like programs, which end up being a hideous mess, because of course JavaScript is nothing like Java. Once you get the light bulb moment when you realise 'hey, this is Lisp!' (though an extremely limited Lisp), your approach to the language changes instantly, and it actually becomes quite elegant in its own way. Also, JQuery. JQuery, JQuery, JQuery. Removes entirely all the browser-dependent annoyances and all the DOM annoyances. Don't even think of writing JavaScript in web pages without it!
    - ludwigvan 15y ago
      > My JavaScript experience was similar. I blame it on the name, stupid as that sounds, because the first thought of a newbie is likely to be 'Oh, this is like Java'. Even worse, because JavaScript is one of the few languages that people think they can use without actually learning it, because it was somehow designed to be that way: an easy to use scripting language. Copying and pasting small snippets from the Web adds insult to injury, so that someone might claim to know JavaScript after working out some issue with the help of a JQuery plugin (Not that I'm against JQuery, I use it and love it, I'm talking about people not learning JavaScript at all, due to the easiness of JQuery possibly.) The thing to realize is, as you mentioned, and as Crockford says, JavaScript is Lisp in C's clothing; I'm not sure where Eckel got the idea that JavaScript is an abomination, reading Crockford's book should make someone think that JavaScript is an elegant language.
tbassetto 15y ago
For a newcomer, it's clear that JavaScript's inconsistencies between browser's implementations is a real burden. I learned to love JavaScript, but I'll not ask everybody to do so.
- locci 15y ago
  FWIW, javascript implementations all behave very similarly surprisingly. There are some quirks of course, like JScript not accepting trailing commas, not allowing array like access to strings and leaking out the names of named function expressions, or like some nastiness in IE behaviour with the global object and window. Especially considering the history of javascript, it's a miracle we're having it this good. Not so much with the DOOM.
mmahemoff 15y ago
"Interestingly, the Google Apps Scripting language appears to be a (civilized) form of JavaScript, and it looks very powerful" This doesn't really compute. Google Apps Script is a (very cool) JavaScript API to interact with Google Apps. It's not a replacement for JavaScript, it's not a language at all. "you read it you begin to understand why it's taken so long for AJAX libraries to appear" It did take a long time, but libraries have been around for many years now (e.g. Dojo since 2004 and jQuery since 2006). Saying that, the article has a valid point about the language being hard to use without such libraries. The trends in the video he linked to ("Learning to Love JavaScript") will begin to address that, but it will take time. There's the risk of browser fragmentation and the large legacy base.
jwilliams 15y ago
Not sure I follow the logic of this article - starts with closures, moves on to somehow conditionally endorse Flex/ActionScript, references you off elsewhere without being specific, talks about closures again, then complains about standardisation with Browsers in general (W3C and CSS) included. What's the beef here? Does ActionScript (JavaScript's ECMAscript cousin) provide something that JavaScript should have? Admittedly ActionScript does hide a lot of the nastier parts of prototypical inheritance / closures / etc from you, but you also lose a bit of power in that. From a pure language point of view the two also have a lot in common. Part of the argument is around standardisation and varying implementations - and on the same for the APIs rather than the language - but that's another debate entirely... and probably one that has little to do with the use of closures. Probably some valid points here, but I can't see it making any conclusion to take away.
- ryan-allen 15y ago
  I'd say that's classic Eckle. Take pity on the man, he's coming to terms with his irrelevance. I read his books, they were rubbish. You don't teach programmers Java by starting off with polymorphism. You don't offensively pepper example code with unit tests to make sure the code in your book works. Tripe such as that he has written here is the kind of talk that had poor old JavaScript derided for years. Correct me if I'm wrong, but JavaScript always had closures, it always had anonymous functions, it always had objects and its for in loop, and functions were always objects! The fact it has a 'new' keyword is because of Java bozos completely missing all the points of JavaScript's features and demanded some familiarity. The fact something such as CoffeeScript can generate running, valid JavaScript is a testament to it's flexibility. The truth is that there's an awful lot of complexity left to capitalise on, and I'm not sure why he's complaining. He's been capitalising on it for years. So while some people will still listen to him and avoid these new hipster technologies, other developers are busy paving the new way and building cool things. The tech we have ain't that bad.
  - j-kidd 15y ago
    I beg to differ. It is a good article, and it makes me want to buy and read Javascript: The Good Part. Other people have recommended me the book before, but they were just hipsters who just follow whatever technology that is regarded by other hipsters as cool. If you read some pages and go "WTF?! This JavaScript is a helluva bad language. WTH is the good part?", the hipsters will just come back with "Dude, you just don't get it". By opting for "Hell yeah, the language is super bad", Bruce Eckle presented a strong case why the book is a required reading.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
deferredviod 15y ago
is he trolling?
sturadnidge 15y ago
Disappointing post from someone who really should know better - he confuses JavaScript with the DOM and other things in several places (i mean really... is he suggesting that JavaScript should have some native capability to "include standard headers and footers on a web page"?). Maybe a better title would be "Bruce Eckel on the W3C / DOM", as that seems to be the primary target of his negativity. Every language has bad parts. If you're going to call something an abomination, you should at least take the time to understand what you are talking about first, lest your opinion be cast aside as another uninformed rant.
- pietro 15y ago
  He used the lack of standardized ways of inserting headers and footers as a example of the ineffectiveness of the W3C, not as part of his critique of JavaScript.
  - sturadnidge 15y ago
    Yeh that's kind of my point though... it's pretty much just a jumbled rant and somehow JavaScript wound up being the target for the headline.
Tichy 15y ago
He should have stayed with Java.
jsvaughan 15y ago
From a synopsis of a Crockford presentation (here http://www.catonmat.net/blog/javascript-the-good-parts/ http://www.catonmat.net/blog/javascript-the-good-parts/) here are some js bad parts: * Global variables. Global variables make it harder to run independent subprograms in the same program. If the subprograms happen to have global variables that share the same names, then they will interfere with each other and likely fail, usually in difficult to diagnose ways. * Newlines get converted into semicolons. JavaScript has a mechanism that tries to correct faulty programs by automatically inserting semicolons. It sometimes inserts semicolons in places where they are not welcome. * Operator typeof is not very helpful. For example, "typeof null" is "object", "typeof [1,2,3]" is also "object". * Operator + adds numbers and concatenates. The + operator can add or concatenate. Which one it does depends on the types of the parameters. If either operand is an empty string, it produces the other operand converted to a string. If both operands are numbers, it produces the sum. Otherwise, it converts both operands to strings and concatenates them. This complicated behavior is a common source of bugs. If you intend + to add, make sure that both operands are numbers. * Operators == and != do type coercion. Use of the === and !== operators is always preferred. * Too many falsy values. 0, Nan, '' (empty string), false, null, undefined are all false. * for ... in operator mixes inherited functions with the desired data members (it does deep reflection).
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- ajuc 15y ago
  IMHO the worst problem with JS is too losely defined standard - typeof on array or on function on some implementations return Object, on some other something different, you often have to check for type of argument (when coding function that would be overloaded in languages that support this concept), and properly doing this is pain (checking is something is array is often done by checking if it has "length" property!). Still, JS is perfect example of how important closures are for programming language - they make very bad language acceptable.
  - masklinn 15y ago
    > typeof on array or on function on some implementations return Object, on some other something different, you often have to check for type of argument You should not be using `typeof` on object types (and this includes functions) anyway. Use `instanceof`. > and properly doing this is pain (checking is something is array is often done by checking if it has "length" property!). This really checks if something is array-like (for instance the jQuery object would pass this "test", even though it's not an array. Likewise for `arguments` or a NodeList)
va_coder 15y ago
Let the code speak for itself: V8, Node, jQuery, Underscore, CoffeeScript, etc
- nirvdrum 15y ago
  Aren't like half of those projects designed to normalize the language? And a third of them are actually written in C, not JavaScript? I guess your comment is technically neutral, so I don't really know what point you were trying to make. But I assumed it was a refutation of the article.
  - yid 15y ago
    "normalize" is a relative term. Does CPAN normalize Perl? Does STL normalize C++? The prevalence of a suite of libraries and tools is a good thing.
    - nirvdrum 15y ago
      Perhaps "language" was the wrong term, but "execution environment" might work. jQuery allows one to treat browsers uniformly so you're not dealing with DOM quirks all over the place. CoffeeScript is designed to basically replace JavaScript syntax. CPAN wouldn't really be a fair comparison, but boost would be.
d0m 15y ago
Disapointed by Bruce Eckel :-/ Javascript != Java; it doesn't mean it's an abomination. I do agree that there are pitfals.. but damn, get over it as it's such a beautiful language. I love JavaScript. I feel like the guy just read the book of Crockford and just got it all wrong.
- nirvdrum 15y ago
  While he did write the Java books we're all familiar with, Bruce has abandoned that language and doesn't speak kindly of it. He's largely been all-in with Python, although he recently had some kind things to say about Scala. In any event, I'm quite certain he's decidedly not looking for anything that looks like Java.
podperson 15y ago
So JavaScript (or is it "JaveScript" is an "abomination" but we should mourn Flash?). Oh wait, it's the browser implementation that's the problem. Argh.
pandeiro 15y ago
Tl;dr: "I need to learn a new language and it's different than Java, Python, and C++. WAAAHHHHHHH"
- akdetrick 15y ago
  Every problem in computer science can be solved with blaming the programming language.
jorangreef 15y ago
After starting out with Ruby, I now prefer Javascript to Ruby for a number of reasons, not least performance, clarity, ubiquity, and expressive power. Sometimes I think the detractors are more upset with their own lack of facility in Javascript relative to their proficiency in something else, than with flaws in the language itself. A penny for every "accidental global variable" and "ugly {".
funkah 15y ago
He's not really wrong about anything, but none of this is novel or insightful. We're all set on "JaveScript[sic] is an Abomination" and "CSS -- who thought that was a good idea?" rants. That last quote just makes him sound crotchety. I guess he wants all these dang web developers to get off his lawn.

78 points by tbassetto 15y ago

Hrundi 15y ago

> JaveScript is an Abomination Ouch

demallien 15y ago
Sure, but the guy freely admits that he is not yet very experienced with Javascript. My own personal experience with it was definitely love/hate for the first 6 months or so, but once I started figuring out what idiomatic Javascript looks like, it started seducing me. My current project is a roughly 50/50 split of Javascript and C - at the start I preferred to do things in C if possible, and avoid Javascript, but now the reverse is true.
- sorbits 15y ago
  Same guy also did a hasted post criticizing Ruby¹ so I wouldn’t really put anything into his “first look” at a programming language. ¹ He removed his first post and did a less negative follow-up: http://www.artima.com/weblogs/viewpost.jsp?thread=146091 http://www.artima.com/weblogs/viewpost.jsp?thread=146091
- macavity23 15y ago
  My JavaScript experience was similar. I blame it on the name, stupid as that sounds, because the first thought of a newbie is likely to be 'Oh, this is like Java'. As JavaScript syntax is similar to Java at a glance, this leads one to try and write Java-like programs, which end up being a hideous mess, because of course JavaScript is nothing like Java. Once you get the light bulb moment when you realise 'hey, this is Lisp!' (though an extremely limited Lisp), your approach to the language changes instantly, and it actually becomes quite elegant in its own way. Also, JQuery. JQuery, JQuery, JQuery. Removes entirely all the browser-dependent annoyances and all the DOM annoyances. Don't even think of writing JavaScript in web pages without it!
  - ludwigvan 15y ago
    > My JavaScript experience was similar. I blame it on the name, stupid as that sounds, because the first thought of a newbie is likely to be 'Oh, this is like Java'. Even worse, because JavaScript is one of the few languages that people think they can use without actually learning it, because it was somehow designed to be that way: an easy to use scripting language. Copying and pasting small snippets from the Web adds insult to injury, so that someone might claim to know JavaScript after working out some issue with the help of a JQuery plugin (Not that I'm against JQuery, I use it and love it, I'm talking about people not learning JavaScript at all, due to the easiness of JQuery possibly.) The thing to realize is, as you mentioned, and as Crockford says, JavaScript is Lisp in C's clothing; I'm not sure where Eckel got the idea that JavaScript is an abomination, reading Crockford's book should make someone think that JavaScript is an elegant language.

tbassetto 15y ago

For a newcomer, it's clear that JavaScript's inconsistencies between browser's implementations is a real burden. I learned to love JavaScript, but I'll not ask everybody to do so.

locci 15y ago
FWIW, javascript implementations all behave very similarly surprisingly. There are some quirks of course, like JScript not accepting trailing commas, not allowing array like access to strings and leaking out the names of named function expressions, or like some nastiness in IE behaviour with the global object and window. Especially considering the history of javascript, it's a miracle we're having it this good. Not so much with the DOOM.

mmahemoff 15y ago

"Interestingly, the Google Apps Scripting language appears to be a (civilized) form of JavaScript, and it looks very powerful" This doesn't really compute. Google Apps Script is a (very cool) JavaScript API to interact with Google Apps. It's not a replacement for JavaScript, it's not a language at all. "you read it you begin to understand why it's taken so long for AJAX libraries to appear" It did take a long time, but libraries have been around for many years now (e.g. Dojo since 2004 and jQuery since 2006). Saying that, the article has a valid point about the language being hard to use without such libraries. The trends in the video he linked to ("Learning to Love JavaScript") will begin to address that, but it will take time. There's the risk of browser fragmentation and the large legacy base.

jwilliams 15y ago

Not sure I follow the logic of this article - starts with closures, moves on to somehow conditionally endorse Flex/ActionScript, references you off elsewhere without being specific, talks about closures again, then complains about standardisation with Browsers in general (W3C and CSS) included. What's the beef here? Does ActionScript (JavaScript's ECMAscript cousin) provide something that JavaScript should have? Admittedly ActionScript does hide a lot of the nastier parts of prototypical inheritance / closures / etc from you, but you also lose a bit of power in that. From a pure language point of view the two also have a lot in common. Part of the argument is around standardisation and varying implementations - and on the same for the APIs rather than the language - but that's another debate entirely... and probably one that has little to do with the use of closures. Probably some valid points here, but I can't see it making any conclusion to take away.

ryan-allen 15y ago
I'd say that's classic Eckle. Take pity on the man, he's coming to terms with his irrelevance. I read his books, they were rubbish. You don't teach programmers Java by starting off with polymorphism. You don't offensively pepper example code with unit tests to make sure the code in your book works. Tripe such as that he has written here is the kind of talk that had poor old JavaScript derided for years. Correct me if I'm wrong, but JavaScript always had closures, it always had anonymous functions, it always had objects and its for in loop, and functions were always objects! The fact it has a 'new' keyword is because of Java bozos completely missing all the points of JavaScript's features and demanded some familiarity. The fact something such as CoffeeScript can generate running, valid JavaScript is a testament to it's flexibility. The truth is that there's an awful lot of complexity left to capitalise on, and I'm not sure why he's complaining. He's been capitalising on it for years. So while some people will still listen to him and avoid these new hipster technologies, other developers are busy paving the new way and building cool things. The tech we have ain't that bad.
- j-kidd 15y ago
  I beg to differ. It is a good article, and it makes me want to buy and read Javascript: The Good Part. Other people have recommended me the book before, but they were just hipsters who just follow whatever technology that is regarded by other hipsters as cool. If you read some pages and go "WTF?! This JavaScript is a helluva bad language. WTH is the good part?", the hipsters will just come back with "Dude, you just don't get it". By opting for "Hell yeah, the language is super bad", Bruce Eckle presented a strong case why the book is a required reading.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

deferredviod 15y ago

is he trolling?

sturadnidge 15y ago

Disappointing post from someone who really should know better - he confuses JavaScript with the DOM and other things in several places (i mean really... is he suggesting that JavaScript should have some native capability to "include standard headers and footers on a web page"?). Maybe a better title would be "Bruce Eckel on the W3C / DOM", as that seems to be the primary target of his negativity. Every language has bad parts. If you're going to call something an abomination, you should at least take the time to understand what you are talking about first, lest your opinion be cast aside as another uninformed rant.

pietro 15y ago
He used the lack of standardized ways of inserting headers and footers as a example of the ineffectiveness of the W3C, not as part of his critique of JavaScript.
- sturadnidge 15y ago
  Yeh that's kind of my point though... it's pretty much just a jumbled rant and somehow JavaScript wound up being the target for the headline.

Tichy 15y ago

He should have stayed with Java.

jsvaughan 15y ago

From a synopsis of a Crockford presentation (here http://www.catonmat.net/blog/javascript-the-good-parts/ http://www.catonmat.net/blog/javascript-the-good-parts/) here are some js bad parts: * Global variables. Global variables make it harder to run independent subprograms in the same program. If the subprograms happen to have global variables that share the same names, then they will interfere with each other and likely fail, usually in difficult to diagnose ways. * Newlines get converted into semicolons. JavaScript has a mechanism that tries to correct faulty programs by automatically inserting semicolons. It sometimes inserts semicolons in places where they are not welcome. * Operator typeof is not very helpful. For example, "typeof null" is "object", "typeof [1,2,3]" is also "object". * Operator + adds numbers and concatenates. The + operator can add or concatenate. Which one it does depends on the types of the parameters. If either operand is an empty string, it produces the other operand converted to a string. If both operands are numbers, it produces the sum. Otherwise, it converts both operands to strings and concatenates them. This complicated behavior is a common source of bugs. If you intend + to add, make sure that both operands are numbers. * Operators == and != do type coercion. Use of the === and !== operators is always preferred. * Too many falsy values. 0, Nan, '' (empty string), false, null, undefined are all false. * for ... in operator mixes inherited functions with the desired data members (it does deep reflection).

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
ajuc 15y ago
IMHO the worst problem with JS is too losely defined standard - typeof on array or on function on some implementations return Object, on some other something different, you often have to check for type of argument (when coding function that would be overloaded in languages that support this concept), and properly doing this is pain (checking is something is array is often done by checking if it has "length" property!). Still, JS is perfect example of how important closures are for programming language - they make very bad language acceptable.
- masklinn 15y ago
  > typeof on array or on function on some implementations return Object, on some other something different, you often have to check for type of argument You should not be using `typeof` on object types (and this includes functions) anyway. Use `instanceof`. > and properly doing this is pain (checking is something is array is often done by checking if it has "length" property!). This really checks if something is array-like (for instance the jQuery object would pass this "test", even though it's not an array. Likewise for `arguments` or a NodeList)

va_coder 15y ago

Let the code speak for itself: V8, Node, jQuery, Underscore, CoffeeScript, etc

nirvdrum 15y ago
Aren't like half of those projects designed to normalize the language? And a third of them are actually written in C, not JavaScript? I guess your comment is technically neutral, so I don't really know what point you were trying to make. But I assumed it was a refutation of the article.
- yid 15y ago
  "normalize" is a relative term. Does CPAN normalize Perl? Does STL normalize C++? The prevalence of a suite of libraries and tools is a good thing.
  - nirvdrum 15y ago
    Perhaps "language" was the wrong term, but "execution environment" might work. jQuery allows one to treat browsers uniformly so you're not dealing with DOM quirks all over the place. CoffeeScript is designed to basically replace JavaScript syntax. CPAN wouldn't really be a fair comparison, but boost would be.

d0m 15y ago

Disapointed by Bruce Eckel :-/ Javascript != Java; it doesn't mean it's an abomination. I do agree that there are pitfals.. but damn, get over it as it's such a beautiful language. I love JavaScript. I feel like the guy just read the book of Crockford and just got it all wrong.

nirvdrum 15y ago
While he did write the Java books we're all familiar with, Bruce has abandoned that language and doesn't speak kindly of it. He's largely been all-in with Python, although he recently had some kind things to say about Scala. In any event, I'm quite certain he's decidedly not looking for anything that looks like Java.

podperson 15y ago

So JavaScript (or is it "JaveScript" is an "abomination" but we should mourn Flash?). Oh wait, it's the browser implementation that's the problem. Argh.

pandeiro 15y ago

Tl;dr: "I need to learn a new language and it's different than Java, Python, and C++. WAAAHHHHHHH"

akdetrick 15y ago
Every problem in computer science can be solved with blaming the programming language.

jorangreef 15y ago

After starting out with Ruby, I now prefer Javascript to Ruby for a number of reasons, not least performance, clarity, ubiquity, and expressive power. Sometimes I think the detractors are more upset with their own lack of facility in Javascript relative to their proficiency in something else, than with flaws in the language itself. A penny for every "accidental global variable" and "ugly {".

funkah 15y ago

He's not really wrong about anything, but none of this is novel or insightful. We're all set on "JaveScript[sic] is an Abomination" and "CSS -- who thought that was a good idea?" rants. That last quote just makes him sound crotchety. I guess he wants all these dang web developers to get off his lawn.