5 ms·

I'm sorry but I have to side with the JS is utter crap crowd. The single redeeming feature of JS is that it's implemented in all current browsers. If it wasn't

by jpgvm 13y ago

I'm sorry but I have to side with the JS is utter crap crowd. The single redeeming feature of JS is that it's implemented in all current browsers. If it wasn't for that fact I doubt anyone would have cared much. It's just nowhere near as good as current alternatives for application development. Everything it can do another language can do better, except run in a browser - which is entirely out of control of the other languages so somewhat of a moot point.

CmonDev 13y ago
Being a non-JVM developer I can see that e.g. Scala is actually trying to innovate, trying to combine best features and learn from past mistakes. But it just grinds my gears when modern JS is represented as some sort of "innovation". How can so called "Open Web" be open if the only realistic option I have is JS+HTML or something that will be painful to debug in a real world job.
DougWebb 13y ago
I'm sorry but I have to side with the "oxygen is utter crap" crowd. It's too reactive, causing all kinds of materials to degrade, and sometimes they even burst into flame! Helium, Neon, Argon are much better, but even Nitrogen, which isn't perfect, is better than Oxygen. The single redeeming feature of Oxygen is that it's pretty much everywhere, and yeah sure we can all breathe it and don't have any other choices for gases to breathe. If it wasn't for that fact I doubt anyone would care much for it. Ok, I'm paraphrasing and extending what you said to make my point... Javascript being in every browser, to the exclusion of all other languages, is a huge factor in its popularity and utility, and it's the main driving force towards improving the language. If Javascript didn't become the in-browser language, it probably wouldn't have existed at all. Instead we'd have some other small language with similar design flaws, or maybe Perl would have been adopted as the in-browser language. At the time it was the main language for server-side web development, it was already embeddable and used for in-app scripting (like Lua is today), and I recall a browser extension for Netscape that let you use it instead of Javascript. IE, of course, would only have had VBScript. Pick your poison.
- candydance 13y ago
  I didn't see a point, just a bunch of facts and a smarmy, self-righteous turn-about comment. If I could downvote it, I would. The parent comment said "Javascript is a bad language but it's incredibly useful because it's in every browser." and you just agreed with him after writing a bunch of sarcastic drek.
  - DougWebb 13y ago
    No, jpgvm said that Javascript is "utter crap" that no one would care about if not for the fact that it's implemented in all current browsers. She/he never said anything about it being useful. My point, which appears to have gone over your head, is that you can't dismiss one of the key aspects of Javascript's value and then call it "utter crap".
    - candydance 13y ago
      Uh, no. He specifically mentioned that running in the browser is why JS is so widely used, even though the language itself is worse than alternatives. >The single redeeming feature of JS is that it's implemented in all current browsers. If it wasn't for that fact I doubt anyone would have cared much. >Everything it can do another language can do better, except run in a browser That's the exact opposite of dismissing a key aspect of Javascript's value, that's explicitly acknowledging it.
- kelvin0 13y ago
  You need oxygen to live. I doubt javascript is essential to most the IT 'ecosystem'.
  - tracker1 13y ago
    Unless your IT 'ecosystem' doesn't include any web based applications, I'm pretty sure it does need JavaScript.
Touche 13y ago
I'm not aware of any other language that makes it so easy to write your code in either a functional or object oriented style. It doesn't do either perfectly, but it gets you a good 85% of the way there for both. Good enough that advocates of a particular style are able to write and enjoy writing JavaScript. I can't think of any other language that has that level of flexibility. Can you?
- oscargrouch 13y ago
  >I'm not aware of any other language that makes it so easy to write your code in either a functional or object oriented style >I can't think of any other language that has that level of flexibility. Can you? (Subjective opinion here)- I think Lua got it better; you can create a better object oriented program with it, as you can do it with functional style; Ending with a more elegant final source code down the road
  - Touche 13y ago
    Yeah, agree Lua did get it better. JavaScript is very much inspired by Lua, but has the disadvantage of having more "cooks in the kitchen" wanting to mess with it.
- lucian1900 13y ago
  Ruby, Python, Clojure, Scheme, Lua, even Scala. All better than JavaScript in most ways.
  - tel 13y ago
    I think it's inarguable that Ruby and especially Python are somewhat inhospitable to functional programming as compared to the rest of that list.
    - lucian1900 13y ago
      No less hospitable than JavaScript, which was my point.

by jpgvm 13y ago

CmonDev 13y ago

Being a non-JVM developer I can see that e.g. Scala is actually trying to innovate, trying to combine best features and learn from past mistakes. But it just grinds my gears when modern JS is represented as some sort of "innovation". How can so called "Open Web" be open if the only realistic option I have is JS+HTML or something that will be painful to debug in a real world job.

DougWebb 13y ago

I'm sorry but I have to side with the "oxygen is utter crap" crowd. It's too reactive, causing all kinds of materials to degrade, and sometimes they even burst into flame! Helium, Neon, Argon are much better, but even Nitrogen, which isn't perfect, is better than Oxygen. The single redeeming feature of Oxygen is that it's pretty much everywhere, and yeah sure we can all breathe it and don't have any other choices for gases to breathe. If it wasn't for that fact I doubt anyone would care much for it. Ok, I'm paraphrasing and extending what you said to make my point... Javascript being in every browser, to the exclusion of all other languages, is a huge factor in its popularity and utility, and it's the main driving force towards improving the language. If Javascript didn't become the in-browser language, it probably wouldn't have existed at all. Instead we'd have some other small language with similar design flaws, or maybe Perl would have been adopted as the in-browser language. At the time it was the main language for server-side web development, it was already embeddable and used for in-app scripting (like Lua is today), and I recall a browser extension for Netscape that let you use it instead of Javascript. IE, of course, would only have had VBScript. Pick your poison.

candydance 13y ago
I didn't see a point, just a bunch of facts and a smarmy, self-righteous turn-about comment. If I could downvote it, I would. The parent comment said "Javascript is a bad language but it's incredibly useful because it's in every browser." and you just agreed with him after writing a bunch of sarcastic drek.
- DougWebb 13y ago
  No, jpgvm said that Javascript is "utter crap" that no one would care about if not for the fact that it's implemented in all current browsers. She/he never said anything about it being useful. My point, which appears to have gone over your head, is that you can't dismiss one of the key aspects of Javascript's value and then call it "utter crap".
  - candydance 13y ago
    Uh, no. He specifically mentioned that running in the browser is why JS is so widely used, even though the language itself is worse than alternatives. >The single redeeming feature of JS is that it's implemented in all current browsers. If it wasn't for that fact I doubt anyone would have cared much. >Everything it can do another language can do better, except run in a browser That's the exact opposite of dismissing a key aspect of Javascript's value, that's explicitly acknowledging it.
kelvin0 13y ago
You need oxygen to live. I doubt javascript is essential to most the IT 'ecosystem'.
- tracker1 13y ago
  Unless your IT 'ecosystem' doesn't include any web based applications, I'm pretty sure it does need JavaScript.

Touche 13y ago

I'm not aware of any other language that makes it so easy to write your code in either a functional or object oriented style. It doesn't do either perfectly, but it gets you a good 85% of the way there for both. Good enough that advocates of a particular style are able to write and enjoy writing JavaScript. I can't think of any other language that has that level of flexibility. Can you?

oscargrouch 13y ago
>I'm not aware of any other language that makes it so easy to write your code in either a functional or object oriented style >I can't think of any other language that has that level of flexibility. Can you? (Subjective opinion here)- I think Lua got it better; you can create a better object oriented program with it, as you can do it with functional style; Ending with a more elegant final source code down the road
- Touche 13y ago
  Yeah, agree Lua did get it better. JavaScript is very much inspired by Lua, but has the disadvantage of having more "cooks in the kitchen" wanting to mess with it.
lucian1900 13y ago
Ruby, Python, Clojure, Scheme, Lua, even Scala. All better than JavaScript in most ways.
- tel 13y ago
  I think it's inarguable that Ruby and especially Python are somewhat inhospitable to functional programming as compared to the rest of that list.
  - lucian1900 13y ago
    No less hospitable than JavaScript, which was my point.