Why JavaScript

https://nicolas.perriault.net/code/2013/why_javascript/

by dirkk0 • 13 years ago

49 85 13 years ago

nicolas.perriault.net

same here: loving python and forced into JS.

Great post, it's just annoying to hear people ranting about JS over and over again. The most annoying fact is, most of these people don't know how to write anything useful in JS besides copy&pasting a few lines a jQuery code. (I have doubts whether it's possible with this knowledge to understand how modern webapps are working.)

In the recent time I've often read posts about people suggesting: learn language X to a reasonable proficiency before you criticize.

friendly_chap• 13 years ago

I have written multiple large JS apps as part of my day job (and I still have to) and I think while JS has some cool features, and I even enjoy using it sometimes, it is mostly a dirty hack.

dasil0032• 13 years ago

When you consider the circumstances under which Javascript was created and grew up, it's nothing short of a miracle that we have a language with the functional power of JS. Sure it's warty as all hell, but prototypal inheritance plus closures give you architectural flexibility that would be the envy of many "better" languages.

camus2• 13 years ago

Well devs are ranting about JS because devs dont have the choice to use javascript or not period. Programmers dont like to be forced into something yet they cant avoid javascript as it is the only language that will work in most of the browsers.

It doesnt make javascript a good language , in fact it is not. It is a poorly designed language that should not have survived the 90's, and if it would have been invented today it would have been different beast. Is there some good stuff in it ? sure, but the irony is it is used to code against the DOM which is strictly typed and made of classes and interfaces( that's the why of DHTML , because it made no sense to use that language against that API ).

Now People can rant about it all they want it wont make a difference , browser scripting = doing some javascript , wether one likes it or not.

PommeDeTerre7• 13 years ago

In my experience, those who criticize JavaScript the most have often used it for many years, and know it extremely well.

These people also usually have many years of experience with other, far more sensible programming languages, too. I'm not talking about PHP or Ruby, either. Rather, these people know one or more of languages like C, C++, Objective-C, Java, C#, Haskell, Erlang, OCaml, Standard ML or Python inside and out.

With such knowledge, it becomes very obvious just how bad JavaScript is. The utter stupidity of many of its flaws becomes so apparent. These people also can see how it lacks the language features necessary for large-scale, multi-developer, distributed development, and then the subsequent maintenance of such projects. They've felt the pain of its numerous other problems time and time again.

I'd say the reality is much the opposite to what you describe. The ones who advocate JavaScript most often have never used anything else. They don't realize how many of JavaScript's inherent problems, or "quirks" as they like to call them, just don't exist in most other programming languages. If they have used another language, it's usually PHP, which is arguably worse than JavaScript in many ways. While living in this bubble of ignorance, they don't see JavaScript's flaws for what they truly are.

chris_wot10• 13 years ago

I notice you said all that without explicitly naming a single flaw.

jeswin2• 13 years ago

You should perhaps focus on adding value to the discussion, than going on about people you hardly know anything about.

JS and Python offer comparable expressiveness for most programming tasks: basic imperative language features, first class functions, closures etc. If you miss list comprehensions, a better syntax for lambdas or classes, go ahead and use the favorite JS shorthand - coffeescript. It _really_ is JS. Even if you don't use coffee, having first class functions would let you write some of those missing features in a library (albeit with a slightly clunkier syntax).

Sure there are nuances, like scoping rules. On the plus side, having a single programming language on the server and client saves some time. Also, most of the libraries being async in nature helps in typical I/O heavy apps.

I draw these inferences from a medium sized JS project I have going on at http://www.poe3.com (source: https://github.com/jeswin/poetry-source). I am fairly convinced that JS did save me a lot of time. Interested in seeing how you came to your conclusions.

Turing_Machine5• 13 years ago

You're using C as an example of an "unflawed" language?

Wow.

Don't get me wrong, C is outstanding in its problem domain, but it certainly has no shortage of rope with which to hang yourself.

"These people also can see how it lacks the language features necessary for large-scale, multi-developer, distributed development, and then the subsequent maintenance of such projects."

The Gmail team might disagree.

w0utert3• 13 years ago

>> In the recent time I've often read posts about people suggesting: learn language X to a reasonable proficiency before you criticize.

Hard to disagree with this. That said, I think even JavaScript guru's generally agree that the language itself is actually pretty awful unless you know all of the legacy quirks and WTFs it is dragging along.

When discussing the merits of programming languages, the observation that "JavaScript is the best we have for browser-based development" or "it's possible to write really awesome things with JavaScript" just doesn't cut it for me. Either you acknowledge and accept JavaScript's deficiences and don't try to sugar-coat them, or you refrain from trying to objectively rank it against other languages at all.

My personal opinion is that you simply cannot reasonably maintain that JavaScript is a 'good programming language', for the simple fact that before can say you are proficient with it, you likely have had to deal with multiple WTF's you'll never run into with (most) other languages. Other dynamic VM-based language exist that are much better than JavaScript, but just like the QWERTY keyboard layout, we're stuck with it.

user243• 13 years ago

> I think even JavaScript guru's generally agree that the language itself is actually pretty awful unless you know all of the legacy quirks and WTFs it is dragging along.

Are you confusing pure JS with DOM APIs and xbrowser quirks? Pure ES5 (or 6) is actually a very lovely language to work in, and now thanks to Node, we can.

Maybe I'm just so used to the quirks that I don't see them as a problem any more.

blablabla1232• 13 years ago

> Hard to disagree with this. That said, I think even JavaScript guru's generally agree that the language itself is actually pretty awful unless you know all of the legacy quirks and WTFs it is dragging along.

Sure, Crockford is probably the best example. But the same is true from many languages that became popular before 2000. C is notorious for its pointer magic and buffer overflows. C++ is notorious for being an "expert language" that takes years to master. Java is hated for being very verbose. I know someone, long term (Ex-)Rubyist, hating the language for not scaling well and being hard to debug.

Maybe I'm too pragmatic but I think in every language there is something to hate. (Haven't seriously tried C# though ;)

I think at the end of the day the libraries make up at least 50% of the overall language experience. In the recent years JS has got a number of high quality libraries like jQuery or underscore.js that transparently circumvent many behated JS features. Like awkward checks for undefined or consistent and easy DOM manipulation.

IMHO C++ is a good example for a language in which libraries can hardly make up for the deficiencies because the language is so complex. JS on the contrary does not have so many rules.

WayneDB• 13 years ago

In my experience, people who don't have any complaints about Javascript don't know many other languages very well.

lampe• 13 years ago

I think the biggest problem is that there are many many bad tutorials/book about javascript and only a few good once.

Often people wane code javascript like language X but javascript isen't language X! You must learn it like every other language! But if often see people doing javascript "when they need it". Nobody writes C just cause they need it... Normally people just sit down and read a book about C.

PommeDeTerre7• 13 years ago

The "best" JavaScript-related book, as chosen by the community at large, is generally considered to be "JavaScript: The Good Parts", by Crockford.

While the most widely respected books for other programming languages teach one how to use such languages' features effectively, "JavaScript: The Good Parts" basically says not to use large parts of JavaScript.

That alone should show just how poor of a language it is. You don't have to ignore, or actively not use, so much core functionality when using a good programming language.

dirkk02• 13 years ago

Also there is this resource, and the first sentence says it all: http://bonsaiden.github.com/JavaScript-Garden/

DanWaterworth• 13 years ago

There are only two kinds of programming languages: those people always bitch about and those nobody uses. - Bjarne Stroustrup

On the other hand, this was said by the creator of C++ and correlation doesn't imply causality; maybe some of the factors that contribute to a language becoming mainstream also cause irritation.

dysoco• 13 years ago

It's funny because C++ is used a lot and everyone bitches about it.

lucian19008• 13 years ago

That doesn't change the fact that it has more flaws and idiosyncrasies than most other languages.

We use it because we must, not because we choose to.

user243• 13 years ago

Where I work, we chose it. Could have carried on using PHP, could have moved to $otherLanguage. We chose NodeJS.

camus2• 13 years ago

i'm sure he is talking about browser programming , what you do server side is 100% your business, nobody cares. And PHP is definetly not a good exemple as it is even worse than JS.

lucian19008• 13 years ago

When the alternative is something as stupid as PHP, sure. But there are much better languages out there that would entirely eclipse JavaScript, if it wasn't the only thing that can reasonably be used in browser.

skrebbel2• 13 years ago

This. JavaScript is in many ways a step forward if you're coming from C++, PHP 5.0 or Java (and a step backward in some other ways, but ok). People sometimes use that reasoning to call it a great language, or at least to call JavaScript's Good Parts a great language.

Problem is, compared with other modern commonplace languages such as C#, Python or Scala, JavaScript simply loses on nearly all fronts. These languages all have all the points that the OP lists about Javascript, plus a whole bunch more.

Only when compared to the hot languages of the nineties is JavaScript a serious improvement.

That said, the fact that it's not awesome surely is no reason to diss it. JavaScript does have those Good Parts, and it isn't bad at all. Just not great either.

Still, i can't wait until we can avoid it altogether and consider it some sort of bytecode that those old hackers with mustaches wrote by hand, back in the day. In text editors!

lucian19008• 13 years ago

I suppose people using JavaScript instead of C++, PHP or Java is probably an improvement. It's still sad that the improvement is so terrible.

shawndrost• 13 years ago

Devs: you should make JS your primary language. It's a complete wild west right now -- still lacking so much as a package manager for the browser -- but meanwhile, the entire internet is moving into a rich client architecture. Tools like Backbone, while useful, are very clearly not the platform we'll be using in a few years. It's a phenomenal opportunity to do meaningful work and be in very high demand.

Self promotion: I believe the above so firmly I went out and started a school for JS devs, Hack Reactor (formerly Catalyst). http://hackreactor.com

dirkk02• 13 years ago

I totally agree with you except that I still stay with the combination Python and JS (actually like the author). But there's no way to avoid JS so why not better embrace it.

@hackreactor: nice! @packagemanager Yeoman (http://yeoman.io/) does something like this and a couple of other solutions, too.

madoublet2• 13 years ago

I personally believe that in a couple years, most programmers on the web stack will use traditional languages (PHP, Ruby, Java, etc) to serve up REST services. And, that is it. The client will handle the rest via JavaScript and client-side bindings (Backbone, etc).

drdaeman• 13 years ago

> you should make JS your primary language

Could you tell at least one compelling objective reason to do so? Especially for non-web-frontend developers out there?

acjohnson552• 13 years ago

The biggest problem with JS for me is not its quirks, but the way that until you know--and I mean, really know--the language, you WILL make absolutely horrific errors, on every single level of development. It does not matter how good you are at writing C, Java, or Python.

Oh, what, you thought == was for comparison? Wrong. Oh, you didn't wrap your all your code in an anonymous, self-calling function? You lose. Oh, what you thought it was okay to leave off semicolons and var statements because they aren't required? Sorry. Hmm, you didn't know how to manage dependencies between scripts? Should have studied harder. You tried to iterate over an array? Ridiculous. Your brain exploded when trying to write a series of asynchronous functions in continuation style? A pity, really.

People who are good at JS like JS because it makes them special. They can lord their knowledge of the quirks over "lesser" developers who come to JS expecting it to act like a sane language. It took an entire industry about a decade just to learn how to tame it. Sure, JS turned out to be really extensible to new paradigms, but hey, so is the lambda calculus.

A good language makes good programming look natural. Like Python. JS is the opposite.

chris_wot10• 13 years ago

Define "natural". Firstly, == is indeed for comparison, just with an implicit cast beforehand. You don't need to wrap all your code in an anonymous self calling function, but to get the most out of it you need to - given the way it was designed, this makes sense.

You speak like C syntax is "natural" - I remember grappling with pointers and references, it took some time for me to get it fully. It's not like Python doesn't have it's quirks.

I find it ironic that those who use Python/Ruby/Clojure/etc want to often ridicule those who use JavaScript. They've got their own form of elitism. Get over it, seriously.

artmageddon• 13 years ago

What the parent was saying regarding the == vs === is that unlike other languages it's very easy to get burned if you don't know the difference and when to properly use it. I'm hardly proficient at JS and not knowing that would've screwed me over.

pretoriusB3• 13 years ago

>Oh, what, you thought == was for comparison? Wrong.

Actually true. And truer to the dynamic spirit of Javascript than ===. Sometimes things don't have to be absolutely equal to be equal, "1" and 1 will do just fine. You can sanitise at another level.

>Oh, you didn't wrap your all your code in an anonymous, self-calling function? You lose.

You loose nothing. You merely expose some names to the global namespace. Which might just be just one name, anyway, sans the anonymous self-calling function. (e.g

window.ns = {}, ns.doSomething = function() ...

>Oh, what you thought it was okay to leave off semicolons and var statements because they aren't required? Sorry.

Sorry for nothing much. A lot of people leave them off with no problem at all. The few edge cases are not unlike any other language's edge cases.

>Hmm, you didn't know how to manage dependencies between scripts? Should have studied harder.

Or not. If you got the result you want.

>You tried to iterate over an array? Ridiculous.

You probably mean the "for i in" idiom. Which is perfectly fine over an array. The only problem arises if someone has extended the Array prototype, which you shouldn't do anyway. And even that can be bypassed with one extra hasOwnProperty check. Not to mention it's solved in ES6.

>Your brain exploded when trying to write a series of asynchronous functions in continuation style? A pity, really.

Well, that's just because Node async style is amateur hour BS, like trying to do closures in C or logic programming in PHP. Doable, but not supported by the language. Use Go or Dart or Haskell or C# or Scala or Tornado etc for your async needs.

davedx3• 13 years ago

> Well, that's just because Node async style is amateur hour BS, like trying to do closures in C or logic programming in PHP. Doable, but not supported by the language. Use Go or Dart or Haskell or C# or Scala or Tornado etc for your async needs.

If async programming in JavaScript "isn't supported by the language": what good is it, then?

davedx3• 13 years ago

The worst one for me with JavaScript lately is trying to build some form of object orientation into my code. There's no canonical way to even implement a constructor, for christ's sake. I haven't even dared to touch trying to use it for polymorphism. Or composition, for that matter. I'm staying the hell away from it for anything simpler than UI code.

If JavaScript was a nicer language I would be spending more time in Node.JS, but it's not, so I'm sticking with Rails.

chris_wot10• 13 years ago

You're forcing class based inheritance onto a language that specialises in prototypical inheritance... however, try http://tobyho.com/2010/11/22/javascript-constructors-and/

ufo3• 13 years ago

I actually don't mind this problem much, although that might be my "functional programming" bias.

You only really need a "canonical" way to do things if you will be wanting to use features that depend on your classes being implemented in a predictable way. For example, class inheritance or implementing "super" method functionality.

> I haven't even dared to touch trying to use it for polymorphism.

Its not at hard as it sounds, since you have first class functions and closures. You can often handle functions directly instead of needing to create objects for everything.

pretoriusB3• 13 years ago

>People who are good at JS like JS because it makes them special. They can lord their knowledge of the quirks over "lesser" developers who come to JS expecting it to act like a sane language. It took an entire industry about a decade just to learn how to tame it. Sure, JS turned out to be really extensible to new paradigms, but hey, so is the lambda calculus.

All those points are moot. It's like pointing C's many flaws (or PHP's myriads). Or Ruby's. Or Javas. All languages have several syntactic or semantic issues.

It didn't "took the industry a decade to learn Javascript". It took the industry a decade to have:

1) Mostly compatible implementation of JS and the DOM. 2) Powerful enough computers and JS VM so it can be used for fancy stuff. 3) A reason to use it (AJAX and involved web apps).

Nothing of which has anything to do with Javascript's "difficulty" or "quirkiness" as a language.

d0m2• 13 years ago

There are quirks in every languages - python obviously included. And please, don't forget that you're using a very old version of the Javascript language. It's a little bit like if I'm arguing about the errors and quirks of Python 1.5. Languages evolve and learn from their mistakes. Unfortunately, old browsers are stuck with old javascript versions. Some people have to write code in java 1.4 or python 1.5, they aren't People who are good at [python or java] like [python or java] because it makes them special.

And that being said, most people coming from [name your favorite language] believe that Javascript works the same way as their language. It's a different language and require a different knowledge. In fact, javascript' similarity to algol might be one of the biggest problem of the language. Have you tried working with C++ without learning the language?

And here are some Python cool "features":

  def foo(x=[]):
    x.append(2)
    print x

  foo()
  foo()

Guess x? To take your term "You lose".

  print 3/2

What's the result? If you answered 1.5, sorry, you're wrong. We're using Python <2.2 here, and it gives 1.

Here's another one, what does it do:

  for i in range(10): print "*",
  print

Is it ""? Sorry, a comma at the end doesn't include a "\n" but automatically insert a space.

Anyhow, have fun here: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/530530/python-2-x-gotchas...

w0utert3• 13 years ago

No language is perfect, but if those are the worst examples you can come up with for Python, there really is no comparison with the insane JavaScript WTF's I've seen.

Default list/dictionary arguments are plain evil in Python, no disagreeing there. I've been bitten by something like the following before, which is similar to your snippet:

  x = y = []
  x.append(2)
  print x
  print y

As for your other examples: except for Pascal/Delphi, I have never used a language that has separate division operators for floats and integers, so at least for me it's only natural that 3/2 == 1, how else would I do integer division?

The print example is just very weak, I can hardly even call it a WTF. Yes it's a little odd, but you're not going to hit weird runtime bugs like when you are comparing things in JavaScript, for example.

I'm frankly very surprised by the almost complete absence of real Python WTF's in the Stack Overflow discussion you linked, I would have expected more. If anything, it actually shows how clean and predictable Python is.

dschiptsov• 13 years ago

Nothing is deeply wrong with it as long as it stays inside a browser.)

madoublet2• 13 years ago

Too late.

jiggy20112• 13 years ago

The biggest problem I have with JS is the multitude of libraries you need in order to make it usable.

These libraries all seem to use and encourage different patterns and trying to use 2 together often leads to confusion.

Switching to a project that uses something different, say prototype instead of jQuery feels like learning from scratch again.

davedx3• 13 years ago

To be fair, I've found many, many projects use underscore for their go-to 'utility' library and it's pretty decent and readable. What other libraries have you seen as dependencies that cause clashes?

jiggy20112• 13 years ago

Not so much clashes, just documentation and examples tend to use often radically different coding styles.

sramsay• 13 years ago

"The first time, to hate it. The second time, to start appreciating it. The third time, to understand it and get shit actually done."

Not unlike the process of becoming addicted to heroin.

mhd• 13 years ago

This sounds awfully familiar, if you replace JavaScript with Fortran and Web with number crunching. And I didn't buy it back then.

mnarayan014• 13 years ago

The reason people use JavaScript for scripting in the browser is because there is no other option. The biggest reason I see to use it outside the browser is because you're already using it inside the browser. There are plenty of things to dislike about JS, but the ability to use it both in and out of the browser is a pretty big upside.

Why JavaScript

Related Stories