4 ms·

I certainly don't want to start a war and I'm glad there are some who think differently. I have many very good colleagues who love JS and love its portability,

I certainly don't want to start a war and I'm glad there are some who think differently. I have many very good colleagues who love JS and love its portability, I respect that. But for me it remains a badly conceived language, A technical debt that penalises the progress of browsers and mobile phones. It remains famous only because it is simple and ubiquitous. And I am deeply convinced that sooner or later it will be replaced by some interpreted language that is more consistent and less error prone (The end that PHP is doing, hopefully?). I'm not criticising the article per se, that such work is cool (hence the "technically cool"). Peace and love.

MaxBarraclough 5y ago
> for me it remains a badly conceived language, A technical debt that penalises the progress of browsers and mobile phones Personally I'd say it has some frustrating quirks, but it's possible to write good quality code in JavaScript. Modern JavaScript has many good features, as its evolution has been managed well, but it's up to the programmer to avoid the (many) bad parts. > I am deeply convinced that sooner or later it will be replaced by some interpreted language that is more consistent and less error prone I agree that it's possible to build less error-prone languages. There are plenty of these already. There's no chance of web browsers adding native support for a JavaScript-killing language, though. Google tried this with Dart, and failed. We already have the option of transpiling various languages to JavaScript and/or WASM. Dart and TypeScript both compile to JavaScript, for example. So far though, none of these languages have seriously threatened JavaScript's dominance.
billywhizz 5y ago
i think you answered your own question. it will be a useful language for a long time yet because it is simple and ubiquitous. these two factors probably outweigh all others. when you add blazing fast performance to the mix then your original comment looks even more ridiculous.

MaxBarraclough 5y ago

> for me it remains a badly conceived language, A technical debt that penalises the progress of browsers and mobile phones Personally I'd say it has some frustrating quirks, but it's possible to write good quality code in JavaScript. Modern JavaScript has many good features, as its evolution has been managed well, but it's up to the programmer to avoid the (many) bad parts. > I am deeply convinced that sooner or later it will be replaced by some interpreted language that is more consistent and less error prone I agree that it's possible to build less error-prone languages. There are plenty of these already. There's no chance of web browsers adding native support for a JavaScript-killing language, though. Google tried this with Dart, and failed. We already have the option of transpiling various languages to JavaScript and/or WASM. Dart and TypeScript both compile to JavaScript, for example. So far though, none of these languages have seriously threatened JavaScript's dominance.

billywhizz 5y ago

i think you answered your own question. it will be a useful language for a long time yet because it is simple and ubiquitous. these two factors probably outweigh all others. when you add blazing fast performance to the mix then your original comment looks even more ridiculous.