5 ms·

Many people do enjoy writing JavaScript and view it as just as good as Python and others.

by javis 13y ago

PommeDeTerre 13y ago
I've dealt with these kind of programmers on numerous occasions. While they may claim to know other programming languages, they usually don't know much about them at all, in reality. If they do know another language, it's PHP, which is just about as bad as JavaScript in most respects. Any programmer who has real experience with a variety of different programming languages will become very aware of how inferior JavaScript inherently is. JavaScript's problems go much beyond the quirks or oddities we see with programming languages in general. They're severe deficiencies (the lack of proper modules or namespacing, and the lack of proper class-based OO), or inexcusably stupid design flaws (semicolon insertion, its broken scoping rules, its broken type system, its broken prototype-based OO, its broken comparison operators, and so on). No intelligent, experienced, self-respecting programmer will want anything to do with such a ridiculously flawed and broken language. They surely will not see it as good as Python or any other language that isn't rife with the unjustifiable stupidity that permeates every aspect of JavaScript.
- driverdan 13y ago
  What a bunch of pompous bullshit. From what you've said it seems you've never met a talented JS programmer.
  - pjmlp 13y ago
    Do they exist?!
  - PommeDeTerre 13y ago
    I've met talented JavaScript programmers. They're just quite good at using other languages, too, and thus choose not to use JavaScript whenever possible.
- thedufer 13y ago
  Well, that's just unnecessarily offensive. I'm proficient in Python, Java, and C, and was at some point also fluent in PHP, Ruby, and Lisp. While I wouldn't particularly enjoy coding in Javascript, CoffeeScript is, to date, the best language I've worked with. I debug in JavaScript, so I'm not that far away from it. Why is "class-based OO" necessary? There's nothing wrong with prototypal inheritance. The way modules are done in Node is pretty powerful compared to other languages I've used. The scoping rules are different, for sure, but I don't really see why you'd call them "broken". They're internally consistent and easily comprehensible. Semicolon insertion is, admittedly a problem. The solution, of course, is to put in your own semicolons. If you do that, and use something approaching reasonable whitespace conventions, there isn't really a problem. JavaScript's `==` the like are, for sure, broken, but that's nothing a `===` can't fix. It's not like the other languages you mentioned wouldn't have issues without reasonable conventions.
  - PommeDeTerre 13y ago
    There's nothing "offensive" about pointing out realities, even if they may be painful for some people to accept. I find your arguments somewhat odd. You do openly admit that you "wouldn't particularly enjoy coding in Javascript". People don't say such things about good programming languages, especially when arguing in favor of them to some extent. I also find it odd that you argue that there's nothing wrong with prototype-based OO, yet claim that CoffeeScript is the best language you've worked with. One of CoffeeScript's most useful and important features is that it adds very simplistic class-based OO to JavaScript. Go look at the example code in the "Classes, Inheritance, and Super" section of the CoffeeScript home page to see what I'm talking about. The CoffeeScript code is tolerable; the JavaScript that's outputted is horrendous. Hand-written JavaScript is often just as bad, if not worse. The various JavaScript "module" systems are purely hacks. They abuse existing language features to fake modularity, poorly. They're nothing like the proper module support of other languages. And at least you admit that semicolon insertion and the broken comparison operators are serious issues. Many other JavaScript advocates refuse to, for whatever reason. There's nothing wrong with admitting that JavaScript is a really bad language. I think you know that it is, and want to admit it, and I think you should. It doesn't deserve to be defended, because its problems are generally inexcusable in every respect.
- WalterSear 13y ago
  I'd wager that you know as much about javascript as you do about presenting a convincing point of view.

Many people do enjoy writing JavaScript and view it as just as good as Python and others.

by javis 13y ago

Many people do enjoy writing JavaScript and view it as just as good as Python and others.

I've dealt with these kind of programmers on numerous occasions. While they may claim to know other programming languages, they usually don't know much about them at all, in reality. If they do know another language, it's PHP, which is just about as bad as JavaScript in most respects. Any programmer who has real experience with a variety of different programming languages will become very aware of how inferior JavaScript inherently is. JavaScript's problems go much beyond the quirks or oddities we see with programming languages in general. They're severe deficiencies (the lack of proper modules or namespacing, and the lack of proper class-based OO), or inexcusably stupid design flaws (semicolon insertion, its broken scoping rules, its broken type system, its broken prototype-based OO, its broken comparison operators, and so on). No intelligent, experienced, self-respecting programmer will want anything to do with such a ridiculously flawed and broken language. They surely will not see it as good as Python or any other language that isn't rife with the unjustifiable stupidity that permeates every aspect of JavaScript.

driverdan 13y ago
What a bunch of pompous bullshit. From what you've said it seems you've never met a talented JS programmer.
- pjmlp 13y ago
  Do they exist?!
- PommeDeTerre 13y ago
  I've met talented JavaScript programmers. They're just quite good at using other languages, too, and thus choose not to use JavaScript whenever possible.
thedufer 13y ago
Well, that's just unnecessarily offensive. I'm proficient in Python, Java, and C, and was at some point also fluent in PHP, Ruby, and Lisp. While I wouldn't particularly enjoy coding in Javascript, CoffeeScript is, to date, the best language I've worked with. I debug in JavaScript, so I'm not that far away from it. Why is "class-based OO" necessary? There's nothing wrong with prototypal inheritance. The way modules are done in Node is pretty powerful compared to other languages I've used. The scoping rules are different, for sure, but I don't really see why you'd call them "broken". They're internally consistent and easily comprehensible. Semicolon insertion is, admittedly a problem. The solution, of course, is to put in your own semicolons. If you do that, and use something approaching reasonable whitespace conventions, there isn't really a problem. JavaScript's `==` the like are, for sure, broken, but that's nothing a `===` can't fix. It's not like the other languages you mentioned wouldn't have issues without reasonable conventions.
- PommeDeTerre 13y ago
  There's nothing "offensive" about pointing out realities, even if they may be painful for some people to accept. I find your arguments somewhat odd. You do openly admit that you "wouldn't particularly enjoy coding in Javascript". People don't say such things about good programming languages, especially when arguing in favor of them to some extent. I also find it odd that you argue that there's nothing wrong with prototype-based OO, yet claim that CoffeeScript is the best language you've worked with. One of CoffeeScript's most useful and important features is that it adds very simplistic class-based OO to JavaScript. Go look at the example code in the "Classes, Inheritance, and Super" section of the CoffeeScript home page to see what I'm talking about. The CoffeeScript code is tolerable; the JavaScript that's outputted is horrendous. Hand-written JavaScript is often just as bad, if not worse. The various JavaScript "module" systems are purely hacks. They abuse existing language features to fake modularity, poorly. They're nothing like the proper module support of other languages. And at least you admit that semicolon insertion and the broken comparison operators are serious issues. Many other JavaScript advocates refuse to, for whatever reason. There's nothing wrong with admitting that JavaScript is a really bad language. I think you know that it is, and want to admit it, and I think you should. It doesn't deserve to be defended, because its problems are generally inexcusable in every respect.
WalterSear 13y ago
I'd wager that you know as much about javascript as you do about presenting a convincing point of view.