Why do people think JS is a good language?

Why do people think JS is a good language?

Attached: 2018-07-25_19-22-52.png (725x253, 12K)

Other urls found in this thread:

github.com/DenisKolodin/yew
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Stockholm syndrome.

This. JS should have been taken out back and shot, but now it's too big and widely used for "enterprise" applications, so it's too hard to kill.

What's your alternative to JS then? Spring? Fucking faggot.

JS is bad. But it is good enough for almost any task.
The same can't be said about Java or Haskell. Heck, Typescript offers some features that make TS is a certain way even more sophisticated to Haskell — all thanks to the flexibility of JS.
Also, monkeys are cheap.

>JS is bad.
No, it really can't be considered strictly bad. Only brainlets would think that. And TS doesn't offer any functionality over JS, it actually hinders taking advantage of type coercion - it's quite a stretch to say the other is good and the other bad.

Typescript.

Unironically this. I wish you didn't have to transpile it to JavaScript to use in browsers, but TypeScript is boss.

It is bad in a certain sense. JS has so much to offer, but without selfdiscipline it may become almost unmaintainable.
So, eventually you have to restrict yourself only to the good, predictable parts.

I wish there was a language as flexible+simple as JS and as flexible+safe as Purescript, but easier to use than PS and efficient at the same time.

>No, it really can't be considered strictly bad. Only brainlets would think that.
Actually people who can into language design think that. Field types are mutable and you expect people to write more than 10 lines in it? It's strictly bad. That's not up to discussion.

if it had more dev time put towards making the language explicitly typed and standardize the function naming, it would be a decent language.
Typescript is honestly better, but transpiling to JS only further shows JS's flaws. The main problem with typescript is that the language itself doesn't have a interpreter built into any web browser to get it some market share, where as JS is the god damn web browser standard.

>JS has so much to offer, but without selfdiscipline it may become almost unmaintainable.
True, but I think the good parts (closures, lexical scope etc) mostly ended up being there because they wanted to make JS as flexible as possible. Just gotta ignore the things that encourage spaghetti code

"field types"? That's not a PL term I've ever heard of.

>JS is bad. But it is good enough for almost any task.
>The same can't be said about Java or Haskell.
I don't like Java but for which tasks is it not good enough? This exact statement applies to Java as well.

Because it is.

Attached: 1497708576534.jpg (228x211, 9K)

>That's not a PL term I've ever heard of.
It's an old term for record which is an old term for compound data structure which is the non-pleb term for structure.

1. Writing one-off scripts in Java is not something that a sane man would ever do. If you need five lines of code — you write five lines of code in JS/Python/Bash, you don't pick Java even if it is possible.

2. Anything that would require Reflection in Java is easier to achieve in JS.

3. Is GWT still a thing? Because if not, there is a huge domain of tasks that are not really covered by Java.

I see, well can't expect anybody to understand you for using such a term. Record is the standard word for it, and compound data structure is a more general term that doesn't refer to just records.

Anyway, almost all mainstream languages have mutable compound data types so you'd be an idiot for deeming a language shit on those grounds. You just gotta deal with it, and JS does this excellently since the introduction of the array / object spread notation

Because it's easy to pick up, you can stand on the work of people smarter than you and feel like you've accomplished something because you duct taped some libraries together and make a PNG bounce and rotate, and because the Kardashians are rich and famous.

what noteworthy have you yourself achieved in the STEM fields?

No clue. It was never even designed to be used for anything besides simple browser scripts so its built on a really weak foundation.

I made your mom switch to python 3 with my dick.

>The main problem with typescript is that the language itself doesn't have a interpreter built into any web browser to get it some market share, where as JS is the god damn web browser standard.
Everyone threw a tantrum when google tried to add dart to chrome even though it is open source.

They don't. But it's there in every browser, and it allows offloading all the shit that the webserver should be doing onto the client.

In a lot of ways, despite its flaws, it is a good language.
What's up with people criticizing JS by nitpicking at stuff like the typeof(null) === "object" mistake and the type casting? If you're going to criticize JS, criticize it for something meaningful, not for tiny quirks that everyone competent who's been writing the language for longer than a few days never bumps into.

so none, big surprise

nitpicking about small quirks of an old language is a literal brainlet filter.

>why won't you dance for me?
>i must have won

Attached: nou.png (645x729, 58K)

>eets a bug in js cos I don't get it.
in proper prototype based object languages everything is an object.

js is not the greatest example. but there certainly is no special null that is not an object in the io language or smalltalk.

>I see, well can't expect anybody to understand you for using such a term.
You mean, you don't know it because you need to lern2languagedesign.
>Anyway, almost all mainstream languages have mutable compound data types
Far from it. Not one even half-assed engineered language has this property. Not even all ad hoc crap has this. Even fucking PHP does better. It's literally just Python, Ruby, JS and some other juicy scripting faggotry.

I read that exchange and you really do seem like a pissy brainlet

no u

do you know others like js or jq who can do client side functional?

github.com/DenisKolodin/yew

Everything is an object, it's a feature.
It's just a less polymorphic version for brainlets