3 ms·
I don't understand how the numbers you've posted here support your argument. You said it yourself "Popularity isn't a measure of quality" and then go on to impl
by andybak 5y ago
I don't understand how the numbers you've posted here support your argument. You said it yourself "Popularity isn't a measure of quality" and then go on to imply that it does.
- onion2k 5y agoI'm not suggesting JS is particularly high quality; I'm just saying that it's not completely broken. There's a middle-ground where it can be both good enough quality to be usable, and good enough to not be considered broken. Given the fact JS is used by hundreds of thousands of developers it is obviously not totally broken, so if you're going to say it is you need some very strong evidence to back that up. Half the time when I see "JS is so broken!" posts they're by Ruby devs. I can't help wonder why they're all so keen to move away from Ruby.
- andybak 5y agoI know we're not supposed to say "did you read the article" around here but there was a fair amount of nuance in it and you don't sound like you disagree with it in any huge sense. > Half the time when I see "JS is so broken!" posts they're by Ruby devs. I can't help wonder why they're all so keen to move away from Ruby. That's an interesting assumption. I would have started from the position that javascript is a mainly a front-end solution so one wouldn't "move away from Ruby" to use it because you would still use Ruby on the back end.