3 ms·

I agree with most of Crockford's recommendations (and use jslint) but it's impossible to create a controlled experiment in which JavaScript was created without

I agree with most of Crockford's recommendations (and use jslint) but it's impossible to create a controlled experiment in which JavaScript was created without globals (or globals requiring declaration and locals being implicit) and inferred end-of-statement and find out if it would have been as popular. Globals make total sense to newbies, and avoiding them is not hard if you're not a newbie. (HyperTalk, if I recall correctly, had local variables by default and global variables explicitly, and was -- I think -- even more newbie friendly than JavaScript, so it's possible that JavaScript might have thrived.) It's not like coding in ActionScript is noticeably more pleasant than coding in JavaScript despite being controlled by a single vendor. And the dedicated ActionScript editor in Flash is far more annoying than a simple text editor. Anyway, "abominable" is a ridiculous word for a language that has so many broadly consistent implementations, is so approachable, and yet supports so many modern programming concepts with a compact and approachable syntax.

masklinn 15y ago
> (HyperTalk, if I recall correctly, had local variables by default and global variables explicitly, and was -- I think -- even more newbie friendly than JavaScript, so it's possible that JavaScript might have thrived.) That's what Python does, it has its own severe failings (especially when the language is lexically scoped). I like dynamically typed languages, but I've come to the conclusion that scope inference is terrible, and variable scoping should always be explicit (and probably statically checked as well), trying to infer variable scope will fail silently and badly.
- podperson 15y ago
  The problem with making scope always explicit is that you then need to explain scope to newbies. Sure, it's worth explaining, but you just lost half your audience. Based on the success of BASIC (and indeed many, many early programming languages), global variables are easy to understand, local variables are less easy to understand. It's all very well to complain about JavaScript's lack of Important Language Feature X, but it's an easy language to learn and use for simple things and yet it's also pretty damn good for complex things (especially in combination with jslint). Along with many other Language snobs, I used to despise JavaScript, but it's the inconsistent DOM implementation that sucks -- IE's in particular -- along with some annoyances you can work around (like truthiness) that are the real issue; once you code with JavaScript and jQuery the DOM goes away and you're left with a very nice coding environment. Compare that to ActionScript 3 and the byzantine Flash/Flex (and constantly changing) class library and then decide which one deserves the adjective "abominable". And bear in mind AS3 completely broke compatibility with AS2 without actually becoming better organized.
  - masklinn 15y ago
    > The problem with making scope always explicit is that you then need to explain scope to newbies. Sure, it's worth explaining, but you just lost half your audience. That's a price I'm willing to pay for the pain it brings later on. > Based on the success of BASIC (and indeed many, many early programming languages), global variables are easy to understand, local variables are less easy to understand. It's not like explicit scoping prevents users from abusing globals... > It's all very well to complain about JavaScript's lack of Important Language Feature X Actually, if you read my comment instead of going off about an alternate reality comment you may notice I'm complaining about a feature of javascript I think is misguided, not about the lack of a feature. > Along with many other Language snobs, I used to despise JavaScript I never despised javascript. Still don't. But after a decade of development, as I've said I've come to view scope inference as a misfeature. > Compare that to ActionScript 3 and the byzantine Flash/Flex (and constantly changing) class library and then decide which one deserves the adjective "abominable". I don't think I have used the adjective "abominable" anywhere, and I really don't care for ActionScript under any of its forms.
    - podperson 15y ago
      re "abominable" -- I'm still talking about the original article ;-)

masklinn 15y ago

> (HyperTalk, if I recall correctly, had local variables by default and global variables explicitly, and was -- I think -- even more newbie friendly than JavaScript, so it's possible that JavaScript might have thrived.) That's what Python does, it has its own severe failings (especially when the language is lexically scoped). I like dynamically typed languages, but I've come to the conclusion that scope inference is terrible, and variable scoping should always be explicit (and probably statically checked as well), trying to infer variable scope will fail silently and badly.

podperson 15y ago
The problem with making scope always explicit is that you then need to explain scope to newbies. Sure, it's worth explaining, but you just lost half your audience. Based on the success of BASIC (and indeed many, many early programming languages), global variables are easy to understand, local variables are less easy to understand. It's all very well to complain about JavaScript's lack of Important Language Feature X, but it's an easy language to learn and use for simple things and yet it's also pretty damn good for complex things (especially in combination with jslint). Along with many other Language snobs, I used to despise JavaScript, but it's the inconsistent DOM implementation that sucks -- IE's in particular -- along with some annoyances you can work around (like truthiness) that are the real issue; once you code with JavaScript and jQuery the DOM goes away and you're left with a very nice coding environment. Compare that to ActionScript 3 and the byzantine Flash/Flex (and constantly changing) class library and then decide which one deserves the adjective "abominable". And bear in mind AS3 completely broke compatibility with AS2 without actually becoming better organized.
- masklinn 15y ago
  > The problem with making scope always explicit is that you then need to explain scope to newbies. Sure, it's worth explaining, but you just lost half your audience. That's a price I'm willing to pay for the pain it brings later on. > Based on the success of BASIC (and indeed many, many early programming languages), global variables are easy to understand, local variables are less easy to understand. It's not like explicit scoping prevents users from abusing globals... > It's all very well to complain about JavaScript's lack of Important Language Feature X Actually, if you read my comment instead of going off about an alternate reality comment you may notice I'm complaining about a feature of javascript I think is misguided, not about the lack of a feature. > Along with many other Language snobs, I used to despise JavaScript I never despised javascript. Still don't. But after a decade of development, as I've said I've come to view scope inference as a misfeature. > Compare that to ActionScript 3 and the byzantine Flash/Flex (and constantly changing) class library and then decide which one deserves the adjective "abominable". I don't think I have used the adjective "abominable" anywhere, and I really don't care for ActionScript under any of its forms.
  - podperson 15y ago
    re "abominable" -- I'm still talking about the original article ;-)