5 ms·

Your claim that JavaScript is "notoriously difficult to write quality software in" is unsubstantiated. Which language in your opinion makes it easy to write qua

by abi 15y ago

Your claim that JavaScript is "notoriously difficult to write quality software in" is unsubstantiated. Which language in your opinion makes it easy to write quality software in?

derefr 15y ago
By the definition given in the article (just solve the user's problem, don't build a tower of abstractions): Forth.
rbranson 15y ago
People only like JavaScript because they know it. Yes, it's more productive than Java because it's (barely) functional, but I personally believe the renewed love for JavaScript is mostly Stockholm Syndrome.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- tom_b 15y ago
  I wonder if JavaScript is mainly loved for its frameworks and libraries? Without jQuery, node.js, etc., how many people would be singing its praise?
  - Jach 15y ago
    I believe since Java 6 (possibly 5), the JDK has come bundled with a minimal installation of Rhino which runs JS on the JVM. How many people actively use that? It's not hard to get going, 5 or less lines of code to start running a JS file and it will run everywhere with JRE >6. But there's no jQuery, etc. It's a somewhat nicer way to work with Java since you aren't forced into I-don't-care-about-it-exception-catching hell and Map<Map<Map<...>>> madness, but compared to Jython or Clojure it doesn't match up. You can get a headless jQuery working with Rhino, though it's not as simple as it should be.
    - rbranson 15y ago
      Rhino is really slow when compared to V8, like Ruby slow.
      - sjwright 15y ago
        Rhino is slow, but it's freaking awesome if you need to write an algorithm that can run in the browser and on the server. Much much much nicer than having to maintain two implementations in two different languages.
  - mcantelon 15y ago
    Part of JS's popularity is definitely politics... the fact it's in the browser gives it a huge shot in the arm. It's a decent language, though. Here's a comparison of JS to Ruby for some of the stuff people generally love Ruby for. JS comes out looking pretty decent. http://fingernailsinoatmeal.com/post/292301859/metaprogramming-ruby-vs-javascript http://fingernailsinoatmeal.com/post/292301859/metaprogrammi...
- patrickc 15y ago
  To quote Douglas Crockford on JavaScript, "Lisp in C's Clothing"
  - rbranson 15y ago
    Before I learned a Lisp, I agreed with that statement. Now, I think nothing could be further from the truth.
    - patrickc 15y ago
      If it ain't got macros, then it ain't a Lisp. Javascript is definitely no Lisp, but I really like that it allows function composition, which is somehow reminiscent of a Lisp. f(g(h(x))); instead of (f (g (h x)))
      - eurleif 15y ago
        Um, pretty much every C-derived language supports function composition, and uses that syntax for it. Am I missing something?
        patrickc 15y ago
        You're right. I meant to say passing first-class functions as arguments, rather than pointers to functions as you would in C or an object method as you would in Java.
    - GeneralMaximus 15y ago
      Indeed. Lisp is a simple language that can be completely defined in half a page. A naive implementation takes less than a thousand lines of code. The language is homoiconic, i.e, there's no difference between programs and data -- everything is a list. This enables programmers to perform complex transformations on code using macros. Lisp compilers such as SBCL generate code that is almost as fast as C++. Oh, and the original Lisp as described by McCarthy is strictly rooted in mathematics. If you limit yourself to writing only a subset of Common Lisp/Scheme -- one that emphasizes immutability and recursive functions on lists of symbols -- it is possible to use formal methods to prove the correctness of your code. None of that is true for JS. I don't think Crockford thought his remark through.
sausagefeet 15y ago
JS is known for being a language with a lot of "WTFs" in it. Yes, you can write bad code in any languages and you can even write great code in JS. But to quote Fogus: "My problem with Javascript has always been that expertise is defined more in terms of understanding its faults rather than its features"

by abi 15y ago

Your claim that JavaScript is "notoriously difficult to write quality software in" is unsubstantiated. Which language in your opinion makes it easy to write quality software in?

derefr 15y ago

By the definition given in the article (just solve the user's problem, don't build a tower of abstractions): Forth.

rbranson 15y ago

People only like JavaScript because they know it. Yes, it's more productive than Java because it's (barely) functional, but I personally believe the renewed love for JavaScript is mostly Stockholm Syndrome.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
tom_b 15y ago
I wonder if JavaScript is mainly loved for its frameworks and libraries? Without jQuery, node.js, etc., how many people would be singing its praise?
- Jach 15y ago
  I believe since Java 6 (possibly 5), the JDK has come bundled with a minimal installation of Rhino which runs JS on the JVM. How many people actively use that? It's not hard to get going, 5 or less lines of code to start running a JS file and it will run everywhere with JRE >6. But there's no jQuery, etc. It's a somewhat nicer way to work with Java since you aren't forced into I-don't-care-about-it-exception-catching hell and Map<Map<Map<...>>> madness, but compared to Jython or Clojure it doesn't match up. You can get a headless jQuery working with Rhino, though it's not as simple as it should be.
  - rbranson 15y ago
    Rhino is really slow when compared to V8, like Ruby slow.
    - sjwright 15y ago
      Rhino is slow, but it's freaking awesome if you need to write an algorithm that can run in the browser and on the server. Much much much nicer than having to maintain two implementations in two different languages.
- mcantelon 15y ago
  Part of JS's popularity is definitely politics... the fact it's in the browser gives it a huge shot in the arm. It's a decent language, though. Here's a comparison of JS to Ruby for some of the stuff people generally love Ruby for. JS comes out looking pretty decent. http://fingernailsinoatmeal.com/post/292301859/metaprogramming-ruby-vs-javascript http://fingernailsinoatmeal.com/post/292301859/metaprogrammi...
patrickc 15y ago
To quote Douglas Crockford on JavaScript, "Lisp in C's Clothing"
- rbranson 15y ago
  Before I learned a Lisp, I agreed with that statement. Now, I think nothing could be further from the truth.
  - patrickc 15y ago
    If it ain't got macros, then it ain't a Lisp. Javascript is definitely no Lisp, but I really like that it allows function composition, which is somehow reminiscent of a Lisp. f(g(h(x))); instead of (f (g (h x)))
    - eurleif 15y ago
      Um, pretty much every C-derived language supports function composition, and uses that syntax for it. Am I missing something?
      - patrickc 15y ago
        You're right. I meant to say passing first-class functions as arguments, rather than pointers to functions as you would in C or an object method as you would in Java.
  - GeneralMaximus 15y ago
    Indeed. Lisp is a simple language that can be completely defined in half a page. A naive implementation takes less than a thousand lines of code. The language is homoiconic, i.e, there's no difference between programs and data -- everything is a list. This enables programmers to perform complex transformations on code using macros. Lisp compilers such as SBCL generate code that is almost as fast as C++. Oh, and the original Lisp as described by McCarthy is strictly rooted in mathematics. If you limit yourself to writing only a subset of Common Lisp/Scheme -- one that emphasizes immutability and recursive functions on lists of symbols -- it is possible to use formal methods to prove the correctness of your code. None of that is true for JS. I don't think Crockford thought his remark through.

sausagefeet 15y ago

JS is known for being a language with a lot of "WTFs" in it. Yes, you can write bad code in any languages and you can even write great code in JS. But to quote Fogus: "My problem with Javascript has always been that expertise is defined more in terms of understanding its faults rather than its features"