5 ms·

Great post, it's just annoying to hear people ranting about JS over and over again. The most annoying fact is, most of these people don't know how to write any

Great post, it's just annoying to hear people ranting about JS over and over again. The most annoying fact is, most of these people don't know how to write anything useful in JS besides copy&pasting a few lines a jQuery code. (I have doubts whether it's possible with this knowledge to understand how modern webapps are working.) In the recent time I've often read posts about people suggesting: learn language X to a reasonable proficiency before you criticize.

friendly_chap 14y ago
I have written multiple large JS apps as part of my day job (and I still have to) and I think while JS has some cool features, and I even enjoy using it sometimes, it is mostly a dirty hack.
- dasil003 14y ago
  When you consider the circumstances under which Javascript was created and grew up, it's nothing short of a miracle that we have a language with the functional power of JS. Sure it's warty as all hell, but prototypal inheritance plus closures give you architectural flexibility that would be the envy of many "better" languages.
  - acjohnson55 14y ago
    I don't know if I've ever seen prototype-based OO used to produce something that dynamically-typed, class-based OO couldn't accomplish in a much more comprehensible manner.
  - PommeDeTerre 14y ago
    In practice, we've seen its prototype-based OO functionality be a burden, rather than a benefit. In any sizable JavaScript code base, there is usually a lot of code and effort put into faking a far more sensible and practical class-based approach to OO. This often obfuscates the code significantly. This is part of the reason why languages like CoffeeScript and TypeScript have become popular. They offer the tools that developers actually need, rather than just telling them, "you should be using prototype-based OO because it's good".
    - dasil003 14y ago
      Arguably that's just because people aren't used to prototype-based OO, but in any case, it supports these custom pseudo-class-based OO constructs just fine doesn't it?
      - cygx 14y ago
        No, it's because JS doesn't expose (or at least didn't used to before ES5) it's prototype system, but instead provides a pseudo class-based overlay. The proper way to do inheritance in JS is // Foo extends Bar Foo.prototype = Object.create(Bar.prototype); function Foo() { Bar.call(this); } Before the introduction of Object.create, you either had to roll your own version, assigned a dummy instance of Bar to Foo.prototype (which is horribly wrong) or transferred methods manually from Bar.prototype to Foo.prototype, which is arguably more 'in the spirit' of JS1.0. That's not how it's done in 'real' prototypal languages like Self or Io.
      - PommeDeTerre 14y ago
        No, it does an absolutely horrible job supporting anything that resembles class-based OO. That's why so much JavaScript code is utterly unmaintainable. It doesn't offer the functionality that developers want and need, so they have to fake it, and this can only be done very poorly.
camus 14y ago
Well devs are ranting about JS because devs dont have the choice to use javascript or not period. Programmers dont like to be forced into something yet they cant avoid javascript as it is the only language that will work in most of the browsers. It doesnt make javascript a good language , in fact it is not. It is a poorly designed language that should not have survived the 90's, and if it would have been invented today it would have been different beast. Is there some good stuff in it ? sure, but the irony is it is used to code against the DOM which is strictly typed and made of classes and interfaces( that's the why of DHTML , because it made no sense to use that language against that API ). Now People can rant about it all they want it wont make a difference , browser scripting = doing some javascript , wether one likes it or not.
PommeDeTerre 14y ago
In my experience, those who criticize JavaScript the most have often used it for many years, and know it extremely well. These people also usually have many years of experience with other, far more sensible programming languages, too. I'm not talking about PHP or Ruby, either. Rather, these people know one or more of languages like C, C++, Objective-C, Java, C#, Haskell, Erlang, OCaml, Standard ML or Python inside and out. With such knowledge, it becomes very obvious just how bad JavaScript is. The utter stupidity of many of its flaws becomes so apparent. These people also can see how it lacks the language features necessary for large-scale, multi-developer, distributed development, and then the subsequent maintenance of such projects. They've felt the pain of its numerous other problems time and time again. I'd say the reality is much the opposite to what you describe. The ones who advocate JavaScript most often have never used anything else. They don't realize how many of JavaScript's inherent problems, or "quirks" as they like to call them, just don't exist in most other programming languages. If they have used another language, it's usually PHP, which is arguably worse than JavaScript in many ways. While living in this bubble of ignorance, they don't see JavaScript's flaws for what they truly are.
- chris_wot 14y ago
  I notice you said all that without explicitly naming a single flaw.
  - PommeDeTerre 14y ago
    Are JavaScript's many flaws truly not glaringly obvious to you?
    - chris_wot 14y ago
      No.
      - PommeDeTerre 14y ago
        I'm truly sorry to hear that. Have you ever used any other programming language?
w0utert 14y ago
>> In the recent time I've often read posts about people suggesting: learn language X to a reasonable proficiency before you criticize. Hard to disagree with this. That said, I think even JavaScript guru's generally agree that the language itself is actually pretty awful unless you know all of the legacy quirks and WTFs it is dragging along. When discussing the merits of programming languages, the observation that "JavaScript is the best we have for browser-based development" or "it's possible to write really awesome things with JavaScript" just doesn't cut it for me. Either you acknowledge and accept JavaScript's deficiences and don't try to sugar-coat them, or you refrain from trying to objectively rank it against other languages at all. My personal opinion is that you simply cannot reasonably maintain that JavaScript is a 'good programming language', for the simple fact that before can say you are proficient with it, you likely have had to deal with multiple WTF's you'll never run into with (most) other languages. Other dynamic VM-based language exist that are much better than JavaScript, but just like the QWERTY keyboard layout, we're stuck with it.
- user24 14y ago
  > I think even JavaScript guru's generally agree that the language itself is actually pretty awful unless you know all of the legacy quirks and WTFs it is dragging along. Are you confusing pure JS with DOM APIs and xbrowser quirks? Pure ES5 (or 6) is actually a very lovely language to work in, and now thanks to Node, we can. Maybe I'm just so used to the quirks that I don't see them as a problem any more.
  - cygx 14y ago
    > Maybe I'm just so used to the quirks that I don't see them as a problem any more. To jog your memory, here's a list of questionable design decisions I can think of off the top of my head: Automatic semicolon insertion and a broken == operator A language shouldn't try to guess the programmer's intention, but rather fail cleanly on ambiguous cases. Function scope and global by default Frankly, I'm appalled by how many dynamic languages get it wrong. Lexical block scoping with mandatory declarations are by far the most sane approach I've come accross, and the only P-language (Perl, Python, PHP with Ruby and Javascript as honorary members) that gets it right is (strict-mode) Perl. Weird object system While actually protypal, the constructor-with-prototype-property semantics add a pseudo-class based overlay without an obvious mechanism for object extension and code reuse.
WayneDB 14y ago
In my experience, people who don't have any complaints about Javascript don't know many other languages very well.

friendly_chap 14y ago

I have written multiple large JS apps as part of my day job (and I still have to) and I think while JS has some cool features, and I even enjoy using it sometimes, it is mostly a dirty hack.

dasil003 14y ago
When you consider the circumstances under which Javascript was created and grew up, it's nothing short of a miracle that we have a language with the functional power of JS. Sure it's warty as all hell, but prototypal inheritance plus closures give you architectural flexibility that would be the envy of many "better" languages.
- acjohnson55 14y ago
  I don't know if I've ever seen prototype-based OO used to produce something that dynamically-typed, class-based OO couldn't accomplish in a much more comprehensible manner.
- PommeDeTerre 14y ago
  In practice, we've seen its prototype-based OO functionality be a burden, rather than a benefit. In any sizable JavaScript code base, there is usually a lot of code and effort put into faking a far more sensible and practical class-based approach to OO. This often obfuscates the code significantly. This is part of the reason why languages like CoffeeScript and TypeScript have become popular. They offer the tools that developers actually need, rather than just telling them, "you should be using prototype-based OO because it's good".
  - dasil003 14y ago
    Arguably that's just because people aren't used to prototype-based OO, but in any case, it supports these custom pseudo-class-based OO constructs just fine doesn't it?
    - cygx 14y ago
      No, it's because JS doesn't expose (or at least didn't used to before ES5) it's prototype system, but instead provides a pseudo class-based overlay. The proper way to do inheritance in JS is // Foo extends Bar Foo.prototype = Object.create(Bar.prototype); function Foo() { Bar.call(this); } Before the introduction of Object.create, you either had to roll your own version, assigned a dummy instance of Bar to Foo.prototype (which is horribly wrong) or transferred methods manually from Bar.prototype to Foo.prototype, which is arguably more 'in the spirit' of JS1.0. That's not how it's done in 'real' prototypal languages like Self or Io.
    - PommeDeTerre 14y ago
      No, it does an absolutely horrible job supporting anything that resembles class-based OO. That's why so much JavaScript code is utterly unmaintainable. It doesn't offer the functionality that developers want and need, so they have to fake it, and this can only be done very poorly.

camus 14y ago

Well devs are ranting about JS because devs dont have the choice to use javascript or not period. Programmers dont like to be forced into something yet they cant avoid javascript as it is the only language that will work in most of the browsers. It doesnt make javascript a good language , in fact it is not. It is a poorly designed language that should not have survived the 90's, and if it would have been invented today it would have been different beast. Is there some good stuff in it ? sure, but the irony is it is used to code against the DOM which is strictly typed and made of classes and interfaces( that's the why of DHTML , because it made no sense to use that language against that API ). Now People can rant about it all they want it wont make a difference , browser scripting = doing some javascript , wether one likes it or not.

PommeDeTerre 14y ago

In my experience, those who criticize JavaScript the most have often used it for many years, and know it extremely well. These people also usually have many years of experience with other, far more sensible programming languages, too. I'm not talking about PHP or Ruby, either. Rather, these people know one or more of languages like C, C++, Objective-C, Java, C#, Haskell, Erlang, OCaml, Standard ML or Python inside and out. With such knowledge, it becomes very obvious just how bad JavaScript is. The utter stupidity of many of its flaws becomes so apparent. These people also can see how it lacks the language features necessary for large-scale, multi-developer, distributed development, and then the subsequent maintenance of such projects. They've felt the pain of its numerous other problems time and time again. I'd say the reality is much the opposite to what you describe. The ones who advocate JavaScript most often have never used anything else. They don't realize how many of JavaScript's inherent problems, or "quirks" as they like to call them, just don't exist in most other programming languages. If they have used another language, it's usually PHP, which is arguably worse than JavaScript in many ways. While living in this bubble of ignorance, they don't see JavaScript's flaws for what they truly are.

chris_wot 14y ago
I notice you said all that without explicitly naming a single flaw.
- PommeDeTerre 14y ago
  Are JavaScript's many flaws truly not glaringly obvious to you?
  - chris_wot 14y ago
    No.
    - PommeDeTerre 14y ago
      I'm truly sorry to hear that. Have you ever used any other programming language?

w0utert 14y ago

>> In the recent time I've often read posts about people suggesting: learn language X to a reasonable proficiency before you criticize. Hard to disagree with this. That said, I think even JavaScript guru's generally agree that the language itself is actually pretty awful unless you know all of the legacy quirks and WTFs it is dragging along. When discussing the merits of programming languages, the observation that "JavaScript is the best we have for browser-based development" or "it's possible to write really awesome things with JavaScript" just doesn't cut it for me. Either you acknowledge and accept JavaScript's deficiences and don't try to sugar-coat them, or you refrain from trying to objectively rank it against other languages at all. My personal opinion is that you simply cannot reasonably maintain that JavaScript is a 'good programming language', for the simple fact that before can say you are proficient with it, you likely have had to deal with multiple WTF's you'll never run into with (most) other languages. Other dynamic VM-based language exist that are much better than JavaScript, but just like the QWERTY keyboard layout, we're stuck with it.

user24 14y ago
> I think even JavaScript guru's generally agree that the language itself is actually pretty awful unless you know all of the legacy quirks and WTFs it is dragging along. Are you confusing pure JS with DOM APIs and xbrowser quirks? Pure ES5 (or 6) is actually a very lovely language to work in, and now thanks to Node, we can. Maybe I'm just so used to the quirks that I don't see them as a problem any more.
- cygx 14y ago
  > Maybe I'm just so used to the quirks that I don't see them as a problem any more. To jog your memory, here's a list of questionable design decisions I can think of off the top of my head: Automatic semicolon insertion and a broken == operator A language shouldn't try to guess the programmer's intention, but rather fail cleanly on ambiguous cases. Function scope and global by default Frankly, I'm appalled by how many dynamic languages get it wrong. Lexical block scoping with mandatory declarations are by far the most sane approach I've come accross, and the only P-language (Perl, Python, PHP with Ruby and Javascript as honorary members) that gets it right is (strict-mode) Perl. Weird object system While actually protypal, the constructor-with-prototype-property semantics add a pseudo-class based overlay without an obvious mechanism for object extension and code reuse.

WayneDB 14y ago

In my experience, people who don't have any complaints about Javascript don't know many other languages very well.