Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login

Oh well, the kool-aid is strong. Next round of what Intel giveth, Microsoft taketh away...

Can somebody please design even worse language so that we can progress by reimplementing everything in it, keeping us occupied for the next 20 years?

How much more real world evidence does HN need to see before the "JS isn't a real language" meme is abandoned?

Pretty sure we're up to billions of real world value created by software written in Javascript. If you're still dismissive at this point, it's time to catch up. You've missed the boat.

It's a "real" language, it's just not a terribly good or fast one. It's works decently when its use is limited to what it was made for: manipulating web pages. For anything else, the "designed on the back of a used piece of toilet paper" starts to shine through.

And no, a JIT can't save you from this, it can only make things acceptable.

That it can create "real world value" is an extremely low bar, which is passed by any turing complete language. COBOL creates "real world value".

>it's just not a terribly good or fast one

From everything I've seen, its performance sits just below Java (4x slower, perhaps) on some standard algorithms or tasks, and significantly faster than languages like Ruby, Python, etc.. I never see hate for those languages like for JS, so I'll disregard that.

>not terribly good

This one never has made sense. What is it missing that makes you hate it so? I think it has rather robust asynchronous handling, 'everything is an object' has lots of nice implications when paired with functionality like Object.keys / .assign, ... So what are the issues you see that make it 'bad'?

> (4x slower, perhaps)

"4x" is a lot slower, and a lot of things are much worse than this. You have to have deep knowledge of the VM (such as knowing how "hidden classes" work in V8) to be able to get JS close to Java.

> so I'll disregard that.

You shouldn't. Claiming a JIT'ed language is fast due to being faster than Python, an entirely interpreted language, is like saying a moped is a fast vehicle because it's faster than biking. Apples and oranges.

Being faster than PyPy, the JIT'ed Python implementation, is a more interesting thing, but this is still very far off "fast" languages.

> What is it missing that makes you hate it so?

Most language features, really. "Everything is an object and objects are hashmaps, EVEN ARRAYS" (terrible for performance, type safety), "array of int16" strings with totally broken unicode codepoint handling (ES2016 brought new ways to deal with codepoints, but the standard way is still broken), the "Number" type which is totally retarted, the terrible "prototype" system, the malice that is "this" and how any bare function expression had its own this context (arrow functions are a good workaround now), and god I could go on.

"Everything is an object" is only useful if you either actually need a hashmap (then use one!), or you have sloppy types.

JS, as a langauge, is not well designed. I'm not saying it had to be Haskell or Rust, but JS is far below average.

It works, and does it job decently due to the very hard work of JS engine implementors trying to make this crazy thing fast, but that's not the same as being good.

> 4x" is a lot slower, and a lot of things are much worse than this. You have to have deep knowledge of the VM (such as knowing how "hidden classes" work in V8) to be able to get JS close to Java.

That's a solid argument for only programming in C and Assembly because they are often 4x faster than anything.

> Most language features, really.

AKA, your preferences are "language features".

> Everything is an object

So you don't like Python. Or Ruby.

> the "Number" type which is totally retarted

Very technical argument there.

> the terrible "prototype" system

So you prefer classical inheritance. Cool. Doesn't mean prototypal inheritance is a bad thing.

None of what you mentioned are missing features, they are personal preferences stemming for your own language preference that differs dramatically from Javascript. I'd start by disassociating your opinionated stances from actual weaknesses in the language, of which there are many, and none of them are what you mentioned.

> objects are hashmaps

But you still have to compute hashcode yourself :D

>Most language features, really.

Name a few.

>terrible "prototype" system

>malice that is "this"

It sounds like you are talking about ES5, not ES6+

Can you guarantee all ES6- code to disappear immediately? Or are you forced to dive deep into warts when you have to work on some older JS project?

Wow, now we're complaining about the outdated versions of a language? Come on man. Nobody is going to write a modern application in ES5 and there are plenty of warts in old Java, C and Python applications as well. That's the nature of them being "old".

Why does that impact whether or not it's a reasonable choice to use the language today? Old libraries I could understand, but old independent projects? How do they affect the current state of the language?

Isn't it obvious? You apply for a job, company that isn't a startup has code that is likely written with old JavaScript whose replacement is not economical, so even if you do everything new in ES7, you still have to wade through old ugly code, likely everyday.

> Name a few.

He did, literally exactly after that sentence.

No, he listed some things that he thinks are broken, he didn't list missing language features

I read it that he meant "fixes for these things are missing and that makes me hate it", i.e. I read it as the answer to your question. He doesn't hate it because it lacks features, he hates it because the existing features are badly implemented/thought-out.

If I threw billions of dollars of vested interest at Python/Ruby/COBOL/(insert language of your choice) we can probably make those run at JS speeds as well. Does that solve the fundamental drawbacks of the languages?

Nope. No it does not.

JavaScript is particularly egregious because of it's weird behaviour about types and coercion and you know, just silently failing, behaviour that I wouldn't want going on in any proper system that handles anything important. Other people have written at great length about JS's many failings.

JS is not the only language with nice async support, practically every mature language has async support and a good number of the compiled ones have proper parallel support as well.

I think this is a really important point. Every browser vendor has spent huge amounts of dollars to increase the performance of Javascript. I don't know if there's another language that has enjoyed this level of investment... Maybe Java is closest, there are multiple companies working on their own VM implementations.

The reason so much has been spent on Javascript: it runs in the web browser. For sure, people have found other reasons to like Javascript but at the bottom of the pile, money was spent because it was in the browser and the browser vendors wanted the browser to do more.

every dynamically-typed language has "weird" behaviour around type coercion, that's simply the nature of the beast.

sure wish i knew what you are talking about w/r/t "silently failing". JS has working exceptions just like 99% of widely used languages.

I'm very glad that you've been omniscient enough to determine what "proper" parallel support is, though. How's that working out for you? Meanwhile, those of us using JavaScript simply run one process per core and never worry about contention, deadlocks, or race conditions.

> every dynamically-typed language has "weird" behaviour around type coercion

Do they now?

    $ irb
    irb(main):001:0> "0" + 1
    TypeError: no implicit conversion of Fixnum into String
            from (irb):1:in `+'
            from (irb):1
            from /usr/bin/irb:11:in `<main>'
    irb(main):002:0> ^D
    $ python
    >>> "0" + 1
    Traceback (most recent call last):
      File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
    TypeError: cannot concatenate 'str' and 'int' objects
    >>> ^D
    $ node
    > "0" + 1
> Meanwhile, those of us using JavaScript simply run one process per core and never worry about contention, deadlocks, or race conditions.

If you never worry about those things, then you're either not sharing any resources at all (in which case threads are also dead easy), or you're failing to deal with the shared resources properly.

I know you know this, but for the GP or anyone else: "Dynamically typed" doesn't mean "strongly typed". Python and Ruby are strongly typed, JS is weakly typed.

Yeah, went for the "picture is worth a thousand words" approach to explaining the distinction :)

and yet you still managed to misunderstand the point :)

Thank you for illustrating my point. All of the dynamic languages made different decisions on how to handle type conflicts, there simply is no right or wrong answer.

Oh, and JavaScript is single-threaded. It's impossible to share resources in a single process.

> Oh, and JavaScript is single-threaded. It's impossible to share resources in a single process.

DBs, files, etc etc. in-process memory isn't the only resource you're sharing.

> every dynamically-typed language has "weird" behaviour around type coercion, that's simply the nature of the beast.

No, that's not true at all. Dynamic languages don't necessarily have type coercion at all, much less weird behavior around it (and, conversely, statically typed languages they have coercion may have weird behavior around it; there's just no link between dynamic typing and weird coercion behavior.)

Who's to say not doing type coercion isn't weird? Every dynamic language treats things slightly differently.

> Who's to say not doing type coercion isn't weird?

Well, if someone has to do it, I will: not doing type coercion isn't weird, and doing inplicit type coercion (not strict promotion[0]) is both weird and dangerous.

But, in any cases that's not really the point. The point is that in this...

> Every dynamic language treats things slightly differently.

“dynamic” is irrelevant. Languages have a wide variety of approaches, doing promotion, coercion, neither, or both (though where both are done, it's often just called coercion even when it is promotion), and dynamic vs. static is mostly irrelevant.

[0] that is, where the “from" type has a range that is a subset of the range of the “to” type.so that there is never a change in meaning resulting from the conversion.

Probably this thing, easy to spot in isolation but much harder when part of a larger system:

   > x={}
   > x.fred
Actively unhelpful!

> I'm very glad that you've been omniscient enough to determine what "proper" parallel support is, though. How's that working out for you? Meanwhile, those of us using JavaScript simply run one process per core

Yeah, and I can do the same thing in Python, and it will be equally as lame: both languages are fundamentally single-threaded.

You act as if JS has all problems solved: Erlang/Elixir/Golang have far superior async & parallel stories and will happily thrash JS/Node in performance and efficiency.

How’s it working out for me? Well I do a lot of stuff in Haskell and Rust now, so pretty great actually.

> What is it missing that makes you hate it so?

1. Type Safety. TypeScript helps, but until strong typing is mandatory in the language, I can't fathom using JS in any sizable project. This is also true of Python, et al.

2. A sane dependency management framework. Maven solved this problem a decade ago. Gradle is trying to fix Maven's XML mistake. But the fact is, if I need a dependency in Java, I know how to get it. And as a bonus, Maven Central isn't going to go down next Tuesday because Timmy in Alberta threw a temper tantrum or something.

3. A sense of stability. Javascript's framework churn is just exhausting.

2. After the npmjs.com registry became immutable and npm got lockfiles I feel npm is pretty much there as far as dependency management systems go. I'm not sure if npm shares the cache across projects (like the ~/.m2/repositories folder for maven/gradle/leiningen), but you can get that with the yarn client if saving disk space is important.

> ...until strong typing is mandatory in the language, I can't fathom using JS in any sizable project.

There are quite a large number of counter-examples to show type safety isn't especially important to the success of large projects.

I think the guarantees it provides are far too limited and weak to support large software systems. It relies on static code analysis, which doesn't mean much unless your app is a single build and runs as a single instance. That's more of a '90's style Microsoft Word type of app than what a typical large software project is today. Meanwhile the guarantees it does provide are only helpful to the extent developers can map their domain problems to the capabilities of the type system. Sometimes there is a nice natural fit, but usually the typesystem is both too weak (doesn't provide a convenient and natural way to impose the constraits of your problem domain) and too strong (imposes constraints your don't need or want, encumbering your development process).

Not to mention that when it comes to Javascript, you can opt-in to about as much static code analysis, including type-safety, as you want.

> until strong typing is mandatory in the language, I can't fathom using JS in any sizable project.

There are massive JS projects in production today, but that's moot. It's never going to be mandatory because that ruins the point. Typing isn't a requirement of a language.

> A sane dependency management framework. Maven solved this problem a decade ago.

A Rube Goldberg machine that solved a problem? Maven's goals may have solved the problem, but its implementation did not.

> A sense of stability. Javascript's framework churn is just exhausting.

Feature, not a bug.

What creates hostility is the sentiment of being forced to use a bad language. There are many alternatives to python or php but none really to javascript (transpilers hacks apart). Webassembly might change that.

The only other language that I have seen generating as much hostility is vb6, and also I believe because some developpers found themselves forced to use it.

Also VB 6 syntax was complete shit.

Pretty much any old language has an odd and inconsistent syntax. I am getting into python now and it feels so much like doing VBA.

Oh yeah, just wait until during a job interview somebody complains that you aren't "pythonic" enough, i.e. don't use some weird inconsistent syntactic wart somebody learned to love.

Have you ever used a language like Elixir? After using Elixir, my first thought was "why the f would anyone even use JS in 2018?" That's how poor the design choices of JavaScript are. Not to mention that the name itself is trademarked by the biggest troll (Oracle corporation).

After using something like Elixir, you'll even wish if Javascript could be permanently banned from the Software industry for ever.

I use Elixir + Ruby + Coffeescript and I still wish JS was never invented.


Honestly your post just reeks of amateurism.

I used to think the same thing back when I used Clojure + ClojureScript. Hah, what idiot would choose Javascript over my god tier Clojure/Script setup?

Well, one day I actually tried to build a company and my cofounder just couldn't be fucked to learn Clojure. We decided on Node. I was forced to learn how to play nice with Javascript where I learned how to appreciate it.

Nowadays, I have a hard time justifying something like Clojure/Script over Javascript. Same with Elixir. And I am very wary of people who can't spot trade-offs since that was how I used to be, and I was wrong. I just didn't have enough experience.

There is no best. There are only trade-offs. Elixir/Clojure might be a good business decision for your project, but if you can't concede any positives to Javascript, I don't think you have a firm grip. And in the end it's always a business decision, not a technical one.

That tweet was golden!

> It's a "real" language, it's just not a terribly good or fast one

"There are only two kinds of languages: the ones people complain about and the ones nobody uses."

- Bjarne Stroustrup

"There are only two kinds of file systems. Those that corrupt your data eventually and those nobody uses."

Luckily, filesystem designers worked hard at making their filesystems journaling, fault tolerant, and more. And we stopped complaining angrily about filesystems ruining weeks (or months) of work, because it stopped being a regular occurrence.

We still complain about the flaws of C++ because they are a constant source of pain.

Stroustrup is arguing that if something is popular criticisms against it must therefore be invalid. He's wrong.

I don't think he's saying the criticisms are invalid, but just that they are at the forefront of more people's minds because the respective language is more prevalent. Languages that are barely used also have their problems - they are just undiscovered or spoken about less.

If he wanted to make the really mundane point that people don't complain about things they don't use there would be absolutely no reason to bring C++ into it. He could just remark that nobody complains about the bad handling of the Model T anymore because nobody drives it. It's true but why is that relevant or at all interesting? Do we really believe this is the mundane observation Stroustrup is making?

No. Stroustrup uses his snarky retort to deflect criticism. When C++ is criticized by (academic) language designers, his comment reads as "and yet people use my language and not yours". And that's pretty immature.

Popular tools have to meet a high quality standard because every wart in the language affects millions of people.

Perhaps we should reflect on why people do indeed use his language, warts 'n all?

Are you suggesting C or Haskell are without their problems? What is your definition of a "good" language?

Good languages are local maxima in the language design landscape. C is a good language. As is Python. And C#. There are many projects for which C or Python or C# are fine language choices.

Other languages have great ideas in them, but the languages themselves are a mixed bag. Perl, Java, C++. Perl inspired Ruby. Java inspired C#. But we haven't seen a good successor to C++ yet, probably because building a systems language is much more difficult than building an interpreted/scripting language.

> good successor to C++

Maybe D, but outside Facebook nobody really uses it.

Not only is JavaScript a “real” language, it’s also a real language.

Why the shot at COBOL here? COBOL's creation of "real world value" by comparison is hardly a low bar: https://thenewstack.io/cobol-everywhere-will-maintain/

COBOL was the state of the art when it was designed, but any evolution on top of that is, by necessity, limited by a 60-year-old core design. While it _has_ produced a lot of real world value in the almost 6 decades of its existence, starting a new project in COBOL would be ill-advised.

Existing projects were written in whatever language for whatever reasons, it's "Would I start a project in this language today?" that's the bar to beat in terms of language "quality" and, in that sense, COBOL is a fairly low bar for most domains.

"real world value" is a completely fair metric. You might be able to argue that different languages offer more value than JS, for different use cases. But mocking the idea of "real world value" seems to completely miss the underlying point of app development -- which is to deliver value.

Again, "delivering value" is a ridiculously low bar, when you measure "value delivered" by revenue. We ought to do better than that.

Some extra hoops to jump above "delivering value (measured in revenue)" are:

- Not creating extra problems for yourself down the line (maintenance costs, complexity, technical debt).

- Not creating extra problems for everyone else (promotion of technologies causing problems if adopted).

- Not dumping externalities on other people (inefficient solutions causing worse UX, more frustration and extra electricity usage).

- Delivering actual value, as measured on the user end (whether or not the software makes them more productive), instead of revenue end (i.e. did we manage to trick enough people to pay us?).

I wonder if they are using TypeScript.

The old Javascript were very bad, recent Javascripts were bad, today's Javascript are OK, future Javascript / TypeScript is actually pretty decent.

Of course I do hope something else has taken its place.

The linked Twitter thread states that they do use TypeScript: https://twitter.com/TheLarkInn/status/1006861097729585154

What part of ‘acceptable’ is unacceptable to you then?

It's very much in the same state that VB was, or even "Excel programming" is today: it certainly works and it certainly produces a lot of business value. It's just that the downsides appear further down the road; maintainbility and scalability issues, or intrinsic conversion causing data loss. That kind of thing.

Every time someone waits for an Electron app to load, or watches it eat their ram? That gets added to the prejudice scale. Every overly-slow page load that eats mobile battery. The feeling that "it doesn't have to be this way" is very strong.

These aren't Electron apps. They are applications written in Javascript and compiled to native via ReactXP and react-native-windows.

Maintainability is a problem regardless of language, scaling is moot as these run native code, scalability is an odd word choice given we are talking about desktop apps, and intrinsic conversion can be solved via TypeScript, Flow or any other typing framework. C, Java and C# all have their own set of downsides as well, but we don't pretend those aren't "real" languages.

You are correct that "it doesn't have to be this way" which is why native compilation exists and is continuing to grow.

I don't think JavaScript itself is the problem here. Electron is slow to load and uses a lot of memory because it's loading an entire multiprocess Chromium runtime with all of the Web platform implemented, optimized for speed and security rather than memory usage.

Microsoft are using React Native here (aside from the Win32 build), which is going to be a lot more lightweight because it relies on the native platform for the heavy lifting.

Let's not confuse popularity (as in lots of users) and popularity (as in lots of love). Death and taxes are popular too! People write javascript because they have no other choice to run in the browser. I don't see that as a testimony that it is a great language.

If your only concern is the ergonomics of the language then there are lots of compile-to-JS languages. Some of them also compile to WebAssembly, which allows them to bypass the GC. It’s still not native speed, but it’s close enough for many applications.

There are pros and cons, but within the next few years it could become common to write in your language of choice, compile to WebAssembly, and ship an app that’s within roughly 50% of native speed.

I imagine JS will still be hugely popular even in that scenario, but that’s a different topic.

I will abandon my skepticism of JavaScript as soon as JavaScript boosters abandon their infomercialesque “millions of people can’t be wrong!” attitude and make a compelling case for the language itself. JavaScript is all we have for web dev which is why it’s so popular. That doesn’t mean it isn’t a fundamentally flawed language, it just means that no one has been able to popularize better solutions because of network effects.

JavaScript is so good Microsoft created Typescript to avoid dealing with it directly. (edit: wrong parent)

the millions are not saying it's perfect. that would be wrong. as you say what we have is js, so let's move on and make something useful with it instead of complaining about it being flawed. it is evolving, being standardized and getting new features. its not going to go away anytime soon, so instead educate yourself into avoid the pitfalls that exist in the language and have fun being productive.

What is the fundamental flaw in JavaScript language?

Nobody is claiming you can't write real software in JS. What they're saying is that it is a waste to do so when so much better tools are available. When you're in the browser there are such huge benefits that it makes sense. Elsewhere I find it hard to understand JS mania.

It's about prevalence. The more prevalent a language is, the more the complainers come out in force. PHP is another language that has created billions of dollars of value, yet it doesn't stop the computer science purists from bashing it every other day. Just ignore the negativity and keep writing code in what makes sense to you.

JS empowers beginners and disempowers advanced developers. If you are learning programming, JS helps you, if you need sensible pro-level features, you are out of luck.

"Pretty sure we're up to billions of technical debt created by software written in Javascript."

There, I fixed that for you. I didn't miss the boat. I've had to maintain mountains of awful code written by careless programmers in a pathetic language with a morass of constantly changing libraries for run-times (web browsers) that can't even be counted on to interpret the code the same.

As opposed to The One Language that is perfect and doesn't incur technical debt when programs are written in it.

"There are only two kinds of languages: the ones people complain about and the ones nobody uses." - Bjarne Stroustrup

Funnily enough, there's another post on HN's front page that (self) explains why JS is a flawed language:


It's too big for a TLDR;

But, just #1 in that list - You need to use a utility library to work with data types in a normalized form? In 2018?? Let that sink in. I hadn't had to do this with any other language.

>even worse language

What's wrong with JS, exactly, that isn't made up for by its advantages?

I see these 'kool-aid' / 'JS is cancer' comments all the time, but they don't come with any real details.

I feel like you've probably never really used JS, if I'm being honest.

I wrote crypto algorithms and protocols, compression algorithms, browser engine sandboxes and similar in JS professionally for 5 years (don't ask why), and often had to deal with fun things like mis-compilations from JS engines and other fun bugs. I'd argue that I have quite extensive knowledge of JS, far beyond the average JS programmer (but far from the highest of experts, of course).

JS's only unique, redeeming quality is its availability through the deployment of web browsers, and the benefits that come with such widespread use. JS wins marketshare because it has marketshare. Any language could have taken JS's place, and most would have been better. WebAssembly, when DOM integration and others become a thing, might allow us to throw JS off its throne.

JS doesn't have advantages on its own to make of for its disadvantages, and relies heavily on extremely advanced JITs to make it borderline acceptable. The language itself still has very clear signs of having been designed on the back of a used napkin (its number type, its "array of int16's" string, "this", "prototype", ...).

I would like to acknowledge that ES2016 brought some things that did remove some retarded areas of JS (like arrow functions, which do not have its own "this" context, unlike the old function expression, class definitions that can briefly make you forget the terrible underlying "prototype" madness, and ways to access proper unicode code points in strings), but we are very far away from having actual advantages here.

Kool-aid in the sense that JS is extremely attractive to MBA types that don't have to write anything with it. There is a huge pool of JS developers (quality is questionable but price range is mostly low), browsers run everywhere, Node.js made it possible to run the whole stack on it, so that's a win for MBA types and a great value proposition. The fact that it's a historically atrocious language doesn't matter as they have peasants (i.e. us) to deal with it (to be honest, it got much better since async/await was introduced, but hacks/warts are still there to be abused in horrible ways).

I wrote bleeding-edge games and other crazy stuff in JS you might be using right now in your business, so my opinion is not unfounded.

Best comment so far

We're mostly just bitter from years of being beaten with it. I can't actually face using node.js as an example. It is physically painful compared to other options that I have dealt with (flask, asp.net). Also for me, I've been burned before. Do you remember when everyone jumped on the PHP bandwagon? That. Again. Look where we are now.

On the web, and now suddenly on the desktop, velocity is not what we need. We need quality and consolidation. Down the line can you see any ES6 based API lasting as long as win32? Hell no. Why would I want to risk building a major capital product on such guarantees?

JS has bad parts. That's why there is a popular book called Javascript the Good Parts. So sure old-school JS could be gnarly, but as the book says, you just use a linter and ignore the bad parts, and what you're left with is a very straight forward, clean and practical language. And now with Typescript on top too, we got the wonders of static typing also. What's not to like?

I think most devs who dislike it because it reduces the barrier to entry which undermines both their own prestige and quality of coworkers. Its similar to dislike of outsourcing in many ways.

From a technical perspective, there are couple disadvantages in the long run that can make large codebases unmaintainable. In particular JS and PHP are resistant to static code analysis since they support functions like exec. So it becomes difficult to deprecate functions because the references are not necessarily explicit, thus can lead to tech debt buildup. ES6 does a better job but its backwards compatibility can leave the code vulnerable.

> I think most devs who dislike it because it reduces the barrier to entry which undermines both their own prestige and quality of coworkers.

I think the prestige comment is a bit unfair, but today at work I had to educate a JS dev on what headers are in a HTTP request/request and some other pretty basic things (a dictionary/record type object and a JSON string are not the same thing for one). They were like "I know I've got to do these things, but I don't know why/how they work".

So yeah, I don't think disliking it because that's the average quality of JS dev I see is an unreasonable position. I'm sure there's some great ones out there doing impressive things, but I'm sure you could point them towards nearly any language and they'd produce something equally cool.

> produce something equally cool

I'd say they'd produce something massively cooler ;-)

What's wrong with JS, exactly

The language has some very ugly warts (although ES6+ fixes many things), I find that the quality/maturity/stability of third party libraries lags behind other languages, and the whole build/dev environment best practices is constantly in flux and breaking things all the time. Also Electron, for all it's advantages, is renowned for being a massive resource hog making what is otherwise a fairly fast and efficient language appear horribly slow at times.

That being said, developing in JS today is a lot better than 3-4 years ago, and I suspect that that pattern will continue.

Not only that, billions of hours of invested time and knowledge will be thrown out of the window instantly and everyone who integrates anything with Office will have to start again from scratch. Literally at least a third of the world is built on bits of spaghetti and duct tape on Office.

For developers though, this is chargeable so I'm on the fence :)

Nobody is going to pay you $1200/day to write JavaScript. The converse is true, there is an overload of low-paid JS devs.

You're right actually but I suppose it'll keep the low paid javascript devs out of my market.

this js-is-not-a-real-language stand is only to be expected from someone like a professor or a computer science student. universities and educational institutions in general will always be the last ones to adapt to changes, after the rest of society has moved forward, and they will try imposing those conservative opinions on everyone who are not in their camp. times are changing, computers are becoming more complex and we need more abstractions too. and the ignorant js-is-only-a-scripting-language statement is simply not true anymore.

Except computers have not gotten more complex. We are dealing with the same kind of filesystems, virtual memory, relational databases, encryption, compression, and network stacks as 20 years ago.

Objections against javascript are not Luddite objections against all types of higher level abstractions; the complaint is that javascript is not suitable for the creation of complex high quality software. If you beat your head against the javascript walls long enough can get something to work eventually, but that's not much of an endorsement.

The only thing javascript has going for it is the delivery mechanism, and that is what makes it so compelling for business use. But this is not because javascript is so good, it's that the other methods of packaging/delivering software are so painful.

The total absence of high quality software written in javascript is sufficient evidence to conclude that javascript is not a tool suitable for serious application development.

> The total absence of high quality software written in javascript is sufficient evidence to conclude that javascript is not a tool suitable for serious application development.

a little overstatement, but okay. js is very suitable for this in my opinion. i don't what counts as "serious" application development in your world, but i've seen quite many good, performant applications around written in js. and servers too!

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact