ActionScript 2 & 3 have a bunch of features being proposed for future versions of JavaScript: constants, parameter defaults, rest params, proxies, weak maps, bi

ActionScript 2 & 3 have a bunch of features being proposed for future versions of JavaScript: constants, parameter defaults, rest params, proxies, weak maps, binary data, private/protected/internal access modifiers. Also has an optional type annotation system (types are an actual part of the language in AS3), automatically-bound functions (AS3), and a Class system. Prototypes and closures are still present in the language (I still use them a lot, but many AS3 programmers do not). (It sounds like parent is familiar with AS (and the question may have been rhetorical), but I included the above list for those who are interested in the differences.) Having said all that, I don't believe those features are what the author prefers about the Flash environment. It seems Mr. Eckel is: * lamenting the loss of `packages` (AS3; AS2 had namespaces for Classes) as I surmised from the closures section (closures as a way of creating private members) * in need of a good framework for building GUIs (he stated he liked Flex [a framework for AS]; though many good GUI frameworks exist for JS) * has bought into the popular opinion that JavaScript is a broken and bad language (though many of the same issues plague AS; in fact, despite what the article may imply, AS and JS share the same way of creating a scope [via functions, not by blocks]) I agree that Mr. Eckel did not succeed in making any clear points. Writing this comment was especially difficult because the article was unfocused. It was not the usual quality I expect from a front page HN post.