To be honest no-one's ever going to read this as it's 23 hours late, but this is my reply.
Yes, it is informed with experience.
My point is that if javascript were not the only language available in the browser it would have died years ago. Citing the example of the internet is like flogging a straw man. The only reason it's on the internet is that there's NO other language competing with it, apart from vbscript long, long ago which only worked in IE when Netscape Navigator was still around so won by default.
So your point was? Cause I really, really don't get your thing about Dismissing javascript as a 'play language' is to ignore, well, the internet. I already explained that one quite clearly. It's the only player in that space and the only reason why anyone even bothers with it.
The C++ was a semi-joke, but you've got to read it in the context of the article and javascript winning big server side. It's never going to happen. The article is totally fubar.
Javascript is one file. Everyone writes it like that in a single closure to make sure it never interferes with anyone else's namespace. Because of the total joke of variable scope. It's a nightmare when it comes to maintainability.
That's my point. It's not portable, it's not at all transferable. It's not at all appropriate server-side for anything apart from play sites.
I'm sure you've done great things with javascript client side but it's never going to be a great language server side because it's just not maintainable.
Generally speaking against javascript as well, it's a total pita when it comes to reading someone else's code anyway. You can't pick up someone else's code and know what's a constructor, what's static, what's a singleton, what's the actual entry point for the whole thing. There are still competing patterns for just writing a god-damn object constructor (Resig style vs Yahoo style, even though Resig's is clearly superior). And even then it's scattered about like crazy. There's absolutely no logical structure to it.
Yes, it is informed with experience.
My point is that if javascript were not the only language available in the browser it would have died years ago. Citing the example of the internet is like flogging a straw man. The only reason it's on the internet is that there's NO other language competing with it, apart from vbscript long, long ago which only worked in IE when Netscape Navigator was still around so won by default.
So your point was? Cause I really, really don't get your thing about Dismissing javascript as a 'play language' is to ignore, well, the internet. I already explained that one quite clearly. It's the only player in that space and the only reason why anyone even bothers with it.
The C++ was a semi-joke, but you've got to read it in the context of the article and javascript winning big server side. It's never going to happen. The article is totally fubar.
Javascript is one file. Everyone writes it like that in a single closure to make sure it never interferes with anyone else's namespace. Because of the total joke of variable scope. It's a nightmare when it comes to maintainability.
That's my point. It's not portable, it's not at all transferable. It's not at all appropriate server-side for anything apart from play sites.
I'm sure you've done great things with javascript client side but it's never going to be a great language server side because it's just not maintainable.
Generally speaking against javascript as well, it's a total pita when it comes to reading someone else's code anyway. You can't pick up someone else's code and know what's a constructor, what's static, what's a singleton, what's the actual entry point for the whole thing. There are still competing patterns for just writing a god-damn object constructor (Resig style vs Yahoo style, even though Resig's is clearly superior). And even then it's scattered about like crazy. There's absolutely no logical structure to it.
Anyway, talking to myself now. Signing off...