Thread: What do we think about JavaScript?

I've mentioned it before, but I really dislike Javascript since it's a dynamic language, lacks object orientation, no exceptions and treats everything that doesn't exist as null or whatever. Javascript is good for nothing but an intermediate language, and it fails horribly even at that. Javascript is the bane of every web. Don't use it. It's horrible to code in and it sucks cpu cycles from simple web pages that overuses it, killing battery life.

Originally Posted by Elysia

I really dislike Javascript since (it) lacks object orientation

But Javascript does have built-in support for object oriented programming, just that it does so without explicit classes via its odd but nonetheless valid prototype approach.

It may be valid, but it's at odds with how every other language does it. Frankly, in my humble opinion, I don't like it.

Originally Posted by Elysia

It may be valid, but it's at odds with how every other language does it. Frankly, in my humble opinion, I don't like it.

This is false and a very bad reason, taken alone, for anyone to dislike Javascript.

What does "every other language" entail? The typical programmer's bread-and-butter language such as C++, Java, which enforce a class-based object hierarchy?

The only reason why an enforced "class-based" approach might be better is because more programmers have been indoctrinated to this way of thinking and therefore can be more productive in the workplace. This fact, however, cannot be used as a reason to say its "at odds with every other programming language."

That said, I do think Javascript mostly sucks.. just as I think most programming languages suck.. try googling "why <programming language X> sucks" for example. You'll find a lot of weird ........ that just makes no sense embedded in Javascript's design.. In fact, I would venture to say that a language's suckiness is directly proportional to the number of people who use it. Of course, however, as a member of this board, I reserve a special place for C (and NOT C++) as the simplest language that models current hardware.

Originally Posted by manasij7479

By that logic JavaScript models the ecosystem available in a current web browser rather well.

There's no denying that for the foreseeable future, I agree.. Although I was not trying to compare C with Javascript. I think each has become more or less a domain specific language: C for systems programming (although C++ is just as good there) and Javascript for the browser.

I thought C's greatest advantage and why it is great is because it provides a nice abstraction over the assembly languages of different physical machines -- which are pretty similiar, after all, and this is what allows the abstraction to work.. I have heard that Javascript offers abstraction over different browsers.

Originally Posted by MacNilly

...I reserve a special place for C (and NOT C++) as the simplest language that models current hardware.

I reserve C++ as the best practical language that models the current hardware. C is just too simple to meet modern needs.

Originally Posted by Elysia

I reserve C++ as the best practical language that models the current hardware. C is just too simple to meet modern needs.

What does that even mean, modeling the current hardware? I understand you always take extreme sides on all things in life, a behavior you may learn to control when you decide one day to actually learn anything about programming. But at least when you take your usual extreme bias and force it down our throats, do it with something that is actually thought provoking and worth of a debate, and not another bash-on-Elysia post. You make an easy target with your bs nonsense, but it gets tiring over the years. At least surprise us with something worth our time.

On point, standard C++ is obviously not even close to model hardware. As an higher level language you shouldn't even put it in those terms. It's an abstraction, a high level abstraction, and it stays clear from the hardware systems it depends and operates on as best as it can. It's for this reason that standard C++ memory management is NOT even close to being a model of the kernel memory management, or why accessing the various hardware resources is made as transparent to the developer as it can be made in the context and semantics of the language. For that matter standard C is slightly lower level, closer to the machine if you will, because it lacks many of the semantics and language constructs that allow C++ to increase its high abstraction level; contradicting your assumption that standard C is too simple. Obviously C is a more complex language from the point of view of the developer for the reasons mentioned above. And it is for this reason among others C remains a valuable language, especially in the development of the lower layers of the operating system and many of the top layer utilities too.

And thank goodness C++ is what it is. Because you, of all people, wouldn't want a language that was nothing more than a C clone. You'd be out of any idiotic bs to shout when carrying your flag and everyone else would be left with a language they had no use for.

Originally Posted by Mario F.

What does that even mean, modeling the current hardware?

That was a stab on "C modelling the current hardware".

Originally Posted by Mario F.

At least surprise us with something worth our time.

You don't need to read them. This is not a forum where I have present homework, facts or research. I have no obligation to help or satisfy anyone or make any effort to do so. Don't expect that of me.

I don't know exactly what you mean by "standard C++." True, in today's world, we want to stray away from the hardware with higher-level abstractions as possible, and that sometimes just doesn't work in places like kernels. But that doesn't take away the fact that C++ can be just a better C. Replace malloc with new, use RAII, don't use exceptions, replace macros with templates and you've pretty much got just a better C. And just as close to the metal as C is. C++ was not designed to be a new Java or C#. It was designed to be close to the metal while offering high-level abstractions. And that is why it's more practical then C, because it offers more tools in the toolbox. Therefore, when you can use C++ over C, you should opt to do so. That is my opinion, and that is why I made a stab at that post.

I dislike it. Strongly. In fact, I hate it. Hate as in hate, not as in dislike. But the reason I hate it is not not because I hate it. But because I hate the fact there are no alternatives to it. The client development ecosystem for the web is almost completely tied to this single language that evolves erratically through the different requirements of millions of developers while extending its library in a chaotic manner to answer the whims of whatever is the the new cool thing in web development. And we will one day pay a dear price for this complacency. Javascript is the enemy that you have to share a bed with.

Web browser vendors are ultimately to blame for this. Every time someone tries to come up with something new, they will take their sweet time to offer support (if they ever will), perpetuating the dependency on javascript and removing any motivation for new and improved languages. And for this reason, web client-side scripting is today one of the ugliest looking, chaotic and nightmarish codebases out there. Looking at a .js file is like looking at the future of a race that decided they didn't want to evolve anymore and adopted pop culture as their everlasting legacy. A bad language that never improved over time and that people just build colorful "plugins" around with colorful names that do colorful things and help finance an whole industry of trainers, educators and book writers along with their publishers. Javascript is the PHP of client-side scripting.

You asked, I answered.

Originally Posted by Mario F.

I dislike it. Strongly. In fact, I hate it. Hate as in hate, not as in dislike. But the reason I hate it is not not because I hate it. But because I hate the fact there are no alternatives to it. The client development ecosystem for the web is almost completely tied to this single language that evolves erratically through the different requirements of millions of developers while extending its library in a chaotic manner to answer the whims of whatever is the the new cool thing in web development. And we will one day pay a dear price for this complacency. Javascript is the enemy that you have to share a bed with.

Web browser vendors are ultimately to blame for this. Every time someone tries to come up with something new, they will take their sweet time to offer support (if they ever will), perpetuating the dependency on javascript and removing any motivation for new and improved languages. And for this reason, web client-side scripting is today one of the ugliest looking, chaotic and nightmarish codebases out there. Looking at a .js file is like looking at the future of a race that decided they didn't want to evolve anymore and adopted pop culture as their everlasting legacy. A bad language that never improved over time and that people just build colorful "plugins" around with colorful names that do colorful things and help finance an whole industry of trainers, educators and book writers along with their publishers. Javascript is the PHP of client-side scripting.

You asked, I answered.

TBH, the entire stack of web technologies is a complete disaster, Javascript is just one part of it. Even if Javascript was amazing and perfect, CSS would still be horrific, HTML still terrible, and HTTP too limiting.

Everyone involved in the evolution of the web who could have stood up and said "Stop! We've gone far enough in this crazy direction!" but did not, should be deeply ashamed.