4 ms·

What is it about js you dont like? is it really about the language? a lot of the complaints i hear about js have more to do with “the community”, “the team”, “

What is it about js you dont like? is it really about the language? a lot of the complaints i hear about js have more to do with “the community”, “the team”, “the application”. here’s the thing: there is _so much_ built in js. i think theres a better chance you find what you want in a mainstream language (js or otherwise), but you first have to identify what your values are.

egberts1 4y ago
The biggest detractor of JavaScript isn't so much about its language’s: - lack of strong typing (unlike Ada), - lack of a standard framework (VueJS, NodeJS, Angular, React, Ember, Mithril, Aurelia, Backbone, Polymer) - lack of consistent control of packaging (embedded or HTTP[S]), - lack of consistent naming convention (wild west of competing function names, unlike libc library to name one language), - lack of unit testing (JS? nah), - lack of correctness for thread procedure theorem (unlike Nim, Ada), - lack of memory access security (unlike Rust), - lack of JMP/goto at lower intermediate representation (LIR) level (unlike many programming languages) thus making direct LLVM more difficult and the least portable. - lack of robust error handling (unlike many) JavaScript is a runaway language with not much forethoughts being put into server-side security that continues to must have - a wider access to local filesystems, - a large, shareable memory block capability set that allows for JIT switching between executable and writing, heap-spraying for kernel addresses, SPECTRE-like capabilitiies (that will continue to be fileless malwares’ favorite haunting ground for decades to come). JS did however introduce a “stack-less” just-in-time compiler that is small enough to get embedded into so many things (my pet peeve is JS of LG smart-TV that is still borked to this day) that no one single anti-virus company can ever hope to cover all those bases. But it’s common, and wide-spread, thus got its adoption rate going for it (much like BASIC variants did during multiple decades) but it sure ain’t going to be healthy. Of course, just flapping off my mouth here toward the incoming tsunami of flotsam against my hardcore cybersecurity values.
- fendy3002 4y ago
  I don't get most of your complains related with embedded capability or security as you've said. I'm not undermining the importance of security, but javascript is not the good language to use when you have good security in mind / to be embedded. It's like using PHP for machine learning. Sure it can works but you'll find that the language is bad (or at least is not the best if compared to some language) at it. Certainly the vast adaptation of it is an issue (like electron), but it's more on the companies side than the language itself. Hopefully there will be other javascript or typescript engine that's more suitable for backend / embedded.
- icedchai 4y ago
  JavaScript was originally intended for form validation and preloading images. Everything else was an accident.
FractalHQ 4y ago
I loathe JavaScript but I adore Typescript. Anyone unhappy with JS (or anyone writing JS period) should stop and adopt TS.

egberts1 4y ago

The biggest detractor of JavaScript isn't so much about its language’s: - lack of strong typing (unlike Ada), - lack of a standard framework (VueJS, NodeJS, Angular, React, Ember, Mithril, Aurelia, Backbone, Polymer) - lack of consistent control of packaging (embedded or HTTP[S]), - lack of consistent naming convention (wild west of competing function names, unlike libc library to name one language), - lack of unit testing (JS? nah), - lack of correctness for thread procedure theorem (unlike Nim, Ada), - lack of memory access security (unlike Rust), - lack of JMP/goto at lower intermediate representation (LIR) level (unlike many programming languages) thus making direct LLVM more difficult and the least portable. - lack of robust error handling (unlike many) JavaScript is a runaway language with not much forethoughts being put into server-side security that continues to must have - a wider access to local filesystems, - a large, shareable memory block capability set that allows for JIT switching between executable and writing, heap-spraying for kernel addresses, SPECTRE-like capabilitiies (that will continue to be fileless malwares’ favorite haunting ground for decades to come). JS did however introduce a “stack-less” just-in-time compiler that is small enough to get embedded into so many things (my pet peeve is JS of LG smart-TV that is still borked to this day) that no one single anti-virus company can ever hope to cover all those bases. But it’s common, and wide-spread, thus got its adoption rate going for it (much like BASIC variants did during multiple decades) but it sure ain’t going to be healthy. Of course, just flapping off my mouth here toward the incoming tsunami of flotsam against my hardcore cybersecurity values.

fendy3002 4y ago
I don't get most of your complains related with embedded capability or security as you've said. I'm not undermining the importance of security, but javascript is not the good language to use when you have good security in mind / to be embedded. It's like using PHP for machine learning. Sure it can works but you'll find that the language is bad (or at least is not the best if compared to some language) at it. Certainly the vast adaptation of it is an issue (like electron), but it's more on the companies side than the language itself. Hopefully there will be other javascript or typescript engine that's more suitable for backend / embedded.
icedchai 4y ago
JavaScript was originally intended for form validation and preloading images. Everything else was an accident.

FractalHQ 4y ago

I loathe JavaScript but I adore Typescript. Anyone unhappy with JS (or anyone writing JS period) should stop and adopt TS.