4 ms·

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

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.