11 ms·

The article boils down to: "I don't like Javascript". Although it's not a great language by design, I think there's a reason why it has reached wide adoption.

The article boils down to: "I don't like Javascript". Although it's not a great language by design, I think there's a reason why it has reached wide adoption. And don't tell me it's because there are no alternatives.

ZenoArrow 12y ago
"And don't tell me it's because there are no alternatives." Then I don't know what to tell you. Why do you dismiss this as a reason?
- drderidder 12y ago
  There were a few alternatives on the client side. Not many, but they do exist: Java was supposed to be the alternative for building web based applications, but Applets didn't gain wide adoption. Flash did better but eventually became unnecessary as the web stack itself got good enough to build things like Google Docs, Processing.JS and such. Then there are the "transpilers" like GWT and the various *script dialects that compile to HTML/JS/CSS. On the server side there are tons of alternatives, of course. Even things like Virtx.io that has bindings to a number of languages including JS. Those are some of the alternatives - at the end of the day most people seem to prefer going back to straight HTML/CSS/JS to build things. They're not perfect but they're pretty easy to learn, they separate the concerns of content, presentation and logic, and they work everywhere (sometimes with a little help from jquery or modernizr).
  - ZenoArrow 12y ago
    From a user standpoint, anything that relies on plugins to work is suboptimal, so that rules out Java applets and Flash. Transpilers are reasonably popular, but they're band-aids over the real issues, and are susceptible to inherit the problems that the shaky foundation lies out, and the mechanisms for library interoperability are not always stable. These problems also persist in the ever evolving landscape of JS frameworks, which are symptoms of the limitations of JS. The other side of it is about what works in the commercial landscape. Building around an uncommon tech stack is a risk when it comes to hiring. The widespread nature of JS is part of what keeps it popular, but that's not necessarily based on merit.
bvanslyke 12y ago
Exactly. From a purely technical standpoint, it's better than any existing alternative for scripting in the browser.
- icedchai 12y ago
  So what are the other alternatives for scripting in the browser? Other than VBScript on IE? Hah. (Languages that compile to javascript don't count. At the end of the day, it's still javascript in the browser.)
  - bvanslyke 12y ago
    (Sorry, that was my point. I was being sarcastic)
    - icedchai 12y ago
      Sorry, it was late at night. I was dreaming of a world where there were actual alternatives... By that, I mean, a real language that wasn't invented simply for doing form validation, pre-loading image rollovers, and popups, then embraced as the next big thing by small children and hipsters almost 20 years later.
wtbob 12y ago
> Although it's not a great language by design, I think there's a reason why it has reached wide adoption. And don't tell me it's because there are no alternatives. I'm pretty sure that this is exactly the reason: JavaScript is found in every browser, and only JavaScript is found in any (modern) browser. That's the only reason it's widely-adopted.
emodendroket 12y ago
I don't think so. He's not saying JS sucks; he's saying there are problems with an ever-shifting ecosystem (which he says is not totally unique to JavaScript).

ZenoArrow 12y ago

"And don't tell me it's because there are no alternatives." Then I don't know what to tell you. Why do you dismiss this as a reason?

drderidder 12y ago
There were a few alternatives on the client side. Not many, but they do exist: Java was supposed to be the alternative for building web based applications, but Applets didn't gain wide adoption. Flash did better but eventually became unnecessary as the web stack itself got good enough to build things like Google Docs, Processing.JS and such. Then there are the "transpilers" like GWT and the various *script dialects that compile to HTML/JS/CSS. On the server side there are tons of alternatives, of course. Even things like Virtx.io that has bindings to a number of languages including JS. Those are some of the alternatives - at the end of the day most people seem to prefer going back to straight HTML/CSS/JS to build things. They're not perfect but they're pretty easy to learn, they separate the concerns of content, presentation and logic, and they work everywhere (sometimes with a little help from jquery or modernizr).
- ZenoArrow 12y ago
  From a user standpoint, anything that relies on plugins to work is suboptimal, so that rules out Java applets and Flash. Transpilers are reasonably popular, but they're band-aids over the real issues, and are susceptible to inherit the problems that the shaky foundation lies out, and the mechanisms for library interoperability are not always stable. These problems also persist in the ever evolving landscape of JS frameworks, which are symptoms of the limitations of JS. The other side of it is about what works in the commercial landscape. Building around an uncommon tech stack is a risk when it comes to hiring. The widespread nature of JS is part of what keeps it popular, but that's not necessarily based on merit.

bvanslyke 12y ago

Exactly. From a purely technical standpoint, it's better than any existing alternative for scripting in the browser.

icedchai 12y ago
So what are the other alternatives for scripting in the browser? Other than VBScript on IE? Hah. (Languages that compile to javascript don't count. At the end of the day, it's still javascript in the browser.)
- bvanslyke 12y ago
  (Sorry, that was my point. I was being sarcastic)
  - icedchai 12y ago
    Sorry, it was late at night. I was dreaming of a world where there were actual alternatives... By that, I mean, a real language that wasn't invented simply for doing form validation, pre-loading image rollovers, and popups, then embraced as the next big thing by small children and hipsters almost 20 years later.

wtbob 12y ago

> Although it's not a great language by design, I think there's a reason why it has reached wide adoption. And don't tell me it's because there are no alternatives. I'm pretty sure that this is exactly the reason: JavaScript is found in every browser, and only JavaScript is found in any (modern) browser. That's the only reason it's widely-adopted.

emodendroket 12y ago

I don't think so. He's not saying JS sucks; he's saying there are problems with an ever-shifting ecosystem (which he says is not totally unique to JavaScript).