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

So of all the good, far more suitable languages they could use, we're getting it written the flaming pile of trash that is JavaScript? Why though?

because it is not a pile of trash. the programmer can be a pile of trash though.

So I think “pile of trash” might be a bit too far, but JavaScript is a weird choice for one major reason: most languages have several objective technical and strategiec advantages. JavaScript has exactly two: it is the only language available in a browser, and it is on a large number of people’s resumes. There is no technical dimension of JavaScript that makes it the best choice for any task outside the browser, and the commonality advantage is shared by many other languages. If anyone has a good counter argument, I would love to hear it. I’m not saying that to be snarky, I genuinely want to hear perspectives in defense of JS other than “well it’s a good language because so many people use it and it’s better than it used to be”

>There is no technical dimension of JavaScript that makes it the best choice for any task outside the browser


How about async-everything?

JS is not the only language with async capabilities.

Any number of other mature languages have async (and parallel, unlike JS) tools available.

> because it is not a pile of trash

For instance, see the `Set` implementation here <https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Refe... and note that it doesn't even has `union` and `intersection` in the standard library. You have to copy/paste some code and place somewhere to have a minimum usable `Set` implementation.

Pretty much a "pile of trash" in my opinion.

This thread is getting weird. Now we're arguing an entire language is trash because the Set type doesn't have native methods you want? Really?

It's just a tiny example of how silly this whole thing is. What's the point of having a committee to draft and design an language that can't even be bothered to have a working Set implementation? It simply doesn't make sense.

It's a pointless example that's trivial to fix. There are actual problems with Javascript. The examples you and many other detractors mention expose the actual problem: You have no idea how to use the language because you don't use it. Instead you whine about some trivial things (At a method to the Set type... it would take minutes), or things you don't understand (prototypal inheritance).

It's not about adding a method or two, I showed one symptom of a much larger problem. Of course one can add a method, but then why bother with the default crippled implementation in the first place? I'd rather have nothing and go find a third party library than having a half-assed one that's almost useless.

> You have no idea how to use the language because you don't use it.

I do use it daily for more than 15 years.

That's such a weak example that it reads like a parody of the people who call Javascript a pile of trash.

You're basically praising it with such faint condemnation.

And by your own metric, I can't imagine how bad you think Golang is.

MBA revenge on nerds...

Recruiting is incredibly simplified

Because recruiting devs for any given language is a block for the like of Microsoft right?

>good, far more suitable languages

Can you give a simple analysis on what weaknesses JS has that other languages would avoid with no pitfalls of their own?

Type safety?

Why not take the opportunity to learn other languages and see for yourself rather than ask someone to hold your hand? Show some initiative.

How on earth am I the one who needs to "[s]how some initiative" when some guy literally just says "JS is a flaming pile of trash" and gives no justification?

It was an ad hominem and I asked him to expound on it.

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