Why people shit on JavaScript?

I coded a Node.js web app prototype the whole working day and I think JavaScript is quite comfy.

It's straightforward, has generic syntax you don't need to learn really, and its FP features are killer.

The only downside is actually not the language itself, but NPM bloat. Anyway, it's not worse than, for example, some enterprise standard JVM ecosystem.

As a language, I dislike it only slightly. I rarely write in it and my lack of knowledge and will to learn it is probably why I don't like it very much.
I think JavaScript has done a lot of damage for the web in tracking/data collection, fileless malware, etc. but that it not so much a problem with JavaScript but a problem with a programmatic web.
But JavaScript (& browser engines that implement nonstandard features) have exacerbated this problem by giving JavaScript so much freedom.

^ if not javascript <script> would be using vb by default and doing the same shit with a worse lockdown and nonstandard features

>JavaScript is a hack by a lisper who really wanted to do Scheme Lisp, but reality required him do Java syntax, and he's got one week to finish design and implementation

>JavaScript, started life as a language for idiots (called web monkeys, meaning, those who are not professional programers but know some HTML/CSS). Hardcore programers spit on JavaScript. Yet, JavaScript has important functional programing DNA from Scheme Lisp, and this fact made the lang extremely simple and powerful. And, because it is the only front end lang for web (kicked out Java applet and Visual Basic), it has grown and grown, and today is the all important respectful language, yet sans cult. (many JavaScript frameworks (For example, AngularJS), node.js, and the smart phones world is changing this.)

>JavaScript, although the lang has many ills, but the fact is that the lang is extremely functional. Its function is pure (aka lambda), and function definition returns a value. Function can take other functions as value, or return a function. This fact along, makes JavaScript a joy. The prototype system, is also more powerful and simpler than classic Class/OOP model.

>JavaScript is nice. For front end web dev, you are stuck with it. But, if you like Functional Programing, you'll love it. The lang has lots warts, but its overall model, is pretty simple.

The problem isn't javascript, its the 20gb it takes to render a todo app. Stop kidding yourself

shit language with no standard library. can’t believe this is what humans produce for their living

>>6

I'm wondering what you consider a better mainstream language.

python is fine for all it’s warts. jvm is very powerful

type coercion is badly implemented.

(the usual) 2 + "2" = 22 etc.

I didn't appreciate it (though also didn't really hate) when I was a n00b and just expected everything to be an implementation of regular OO, rather than to look at how the language was designed and use it that way. I like it netter nowadays after having taken some time to learn it.

Too many frameworks and too much churn. I don’t want to spend my nights reading documentation for yet another UI framework because people decide all the existing frameworks are old and busted and this other framework is the new hotness. I don’t get paid enough for that shit and neither does anybody else.

>>8

I hate Python. I hate its indentation-based syntax which is barely readable. I hate its overcomplication of syntax because of that. I hate it's forced down on everyone as a default lang.

I hope it will finish like Perl soon.

>jvm is very powerful

The best thing that happened to JS was deno and TypeScript but people prefer the vanilla crap

>>13

Is TypeScript worth the effort for smaller apps?

>>13

>deno

HONESTLY JAVASCRIPT ISN'T A BAD LANGUAGE. IF IMPLEMENTED CORRECTLY, IT COULD VERY WELL BE THE BEST LANGUAGE ON EARTH. I BLAME THE STINKY DINKY PAJEETS HONESTLY.

I'm personally not a fan of its overuse on websites. Client-side scripting shouldn't be a thing on websites unless someone's making a web based NES emulator or something, not just loading a microblog with some jpegs attached to it.

>>17
Ideally, I think JavaScript could still be used but only as a last resort or if the benefits significantly outweigh the drawbacks.
I think one reason for it's use is that web devs think about solving the problem in javascript first, rather than think if it can be done with HTML/CSS. This is sometimes seen with navigation bars.
Some bullshit websites could work fine without js, but for some reason require you to use it (ex. openstax.org)

>>14
I tried TypeScript recently and it's quite good, a considerable upgrade upon pure JS.

JavaScript will do for really small apps (e.g. short Lambda script), but if I needed to have more than one file, I would certainly go with TS.

>>1
There's no difference between killing niggers and flushing your poop down the toilet.