| For [[I|me]] personally, [[JavaScript]] is just another assembly language. An object oriented assembler people were seeking for in 80-ties. [[JavaScript]] as of 2015 is a famous target ''instruction set'' (just like [[wikipedia:Z80|Z80]] or [[wikipedia:i386|i386]]). Many languages compile to it. The reason is simple: if you want your program run everywhere, you need it to run in a browser and [[JavaScript]] is the language all modern browsers speak. As such we have a way to translate [[C]] (via [[Asm.js]]) to [[JavaScript]] as well [[Java]] (via [[I|my]] [[bck2brwsr]] [[VM]] or [[TeaVM]]). [[I]] don’t see any reason why people should code in assembler anymore. And certainly I am not going to do so myself – I rather spend a year to create a [[Bck2Brwsr|framework]] than to write directly in [[JavaScript]]. | | For [[I|me]] personally, [[JavaScript]] is just another assembly language. An object oriented assembler people were seeking for in 80-ties. [[JavaScript]] as of 2015 is a famous target ''instruction set'' (just like [[wikipedia:Z80|Z80]] or [[wikipedia:i386|i386]]). Many languages compile to it. The reason is simple: if you want your program run everywhere, you need it to run in a browser and [[JavaScript]] is the language all modern browsers speak. As such we have a way to translate [[C]] (via [[Asm.js]]) to [[JavaScript]] as well [[Java]] (via [[I|my]] [[bck2brwsr]] [[VM]] or [[TeaVM]]). [[I]] don’t see any reason why people should code in assembler anymore. And certainly I am not going to do so myself – I rather spend a year to create a [[Bck2Brwsr|framework]] than to write directly in [[JavaScript]]. |
- | [[I]] know large group of people that are fine with [[JavaScript]], but face it: It’s a “write once and throw away” language. You write your code once and ship it when it works. Later, when you are asked to change something in it, you are afraid to touch it. No refactorings, as no tool can guarantee that your code will behave the same after refactoring (unlike in more restricted languages like [[Java]]), no huge changes – touch it only lightly and with care. It is often easier to start from scratch. | + | [[I]] know large group of people that are fine with [[JavaScript]], but face it: It’s a “Write Once and Never Touch Again” language. You write your code once and ship it when it works. Later, when you are asked to change something in it, you are afraid to touch it. No refactorings, as no tool can guarantee that your code will behave the same after refactoring (unlike in more restricted languages like [[Java]]), no huge changes – touch it only lightly and with care. It is often easier to start from scratch. |
| I hear complaints of this kind from executives everywhere. Especially if they have one gang of [[Java]] programmers and another of [[JavaScript]] developers in-house. They tend to see the latter as less reliable geeks always trying something new, but never delivering long lasting product. It may be a clash of generations (as [[JavaScript]] guys are usually younger), but I believe the root cause is the assembly nature of [[JavaScript]]. | | I hear complaints of this kind from executives everywhere. Especially if they have one gang of [[Java]] programmers and another of [[JavaScript]] developers in-house. They tend to see the latter as less reliable geeks always trying something new, but never delivering long lasting product. It may be a clash of generations (as [[JavaScript]] guys are usually younger), but I believe the root cause is the assembly nature of [[JavaScript]]. |