My opinion is irrelevant. An objective analysis of the claims made in each article should be sufficient for you to determine their quality. I seem to recall suggesting that you do exactly that, though I suspect that you haven't yet.
PHP will be around for a long time because any idiot (and I mean that) can have a go.
Isn't that a good thing? We use programming languages to make writing programs easier, after all.
I honestly have no idea how 'easy to use' became such a horrible thing. I get the whole 'you end up maintaining some amateurs crummy code' thing, sure. However, I've also seen enough inexcusably awful code from seasoned developers to put any stock in that argument.
That's why node.js is rightly describable as nothing more than a toy for people who don't know what they're doing.
I'm not sold on node myself, but I'm pretty sure the guys at PayPal, Yahoo, LinkedIn, Dow Jones, etc. just might be capable of making an informed decision.
I get it, you don't like javascript. Well, at least you don't think you like it -- it's pretty cool right now (on slashdot) to believe that it's irredeemably bad, so I'm not sure if you've actually formed your own opinion after taking the time to learn the language or not. Few people actually do take the time, after all, and not too many of those retain their simple black-and-white view afterward. Fewer still retain an overall negative opinion.
Even if you're one of those on the outside edge of the bell-curve, that believe alone isn't sufficient to convince others that the language is completely useless for a broad range of applications to which it is already being successfully applied.
Yeah, but unlike Saddam I'd like to think we're not a bunch of assholes who would put an old video game ahead of the well-being of kids.
Because you spend every cent of your disposable income on charity, right?
If not, I'd love to know what you think is more important than starving kids. Is it a snack from the convenience store? A trip to the movies? The latest novel from your favorite author?
I also presume you live in the cheapest possible housing, subsisting on the least expensive food you can find, as you prioritize the well-being of other so much that you dare not waste a penny that could go to better the lives of poor, disadvantaged, children.
Really, if you don't, you must be some kind of unfeeling monster!
You're trying to impose precision where none exists. I can certainly understand the impulse, but you'll save yourself a whole lot of trouble if you just accept the simple fact that language is naturally messy and imprecise.
If you can't, then at least just let this one go. It's really not worth the effort. What could you possibly hope to achieve?
Otherwise, where you have a choice, JavaScript is NORMALLY not the best suited for any role other than client side web page code. Exceptions may exist.
That's a bit more reasonable. Though I wonder why you limit its utility like that? Is there something intrinsic to the language that makes you think it's less suitable than, for example, Python in situations where that language is well-suited? For clarity: JS can't replace PHP where it works well for reasons independent of the languages themselves (that's in the differences between node.js and mod_php), yet JS obviously can't compete with C where C shines, for obvious reasons directly related to the languages.
It's the ONLY choice for client-side web. As I said twice before, that's the one place nothing is worse or better - because you have no other choice.
You seem to forget that, for many years, it was not the only choice. JS handily beat the competition. You may be too young to remember those early days, so I won't hold it against you.
Since neither iOS nor most Android devices run Java applets, that means MOST users today won't run them. A "solution" that won't run at all for most users isn't a solution. You can't say "Java and JavaScript would both work, but JavaScript would be better".
Again, you forget your history. Java in the browser was effectively dead long before iOS and Android hit the scene. It lost out for a reason, after all. Java had its chance, there was more than a little excitement surrounding it, and it still failed miserably.
If you're advocating JavaScript as a server-side language, well that's just silly.
I'm not advocating anything, just calling out your opinion as unsupported and uninformed. (You've never explained your reasoning. I assume that's because there is none and your just repeating a meme.) Still, you'll find that JS on the server is getting quite popular. Even sites like PayPal have adopted it. Call me crazy, but I'm pretty sure they're well-aware of the alternatives and selected JS anyway.
If a key component of the language behaves in unintuitive, surprising, and troublesome ways, that's a valid criticism.
In the case of this, it's only surprising if you know absolutely nothing about the language. If it behaved the same was that it does in a language like Java, it wouldn't make any sense at all. Once you understand the basics of the language, it behaves exactly as you would expect. As I said before, that criticism stems from pure, unadulterated, ignorance. For whatever reason, people seem to think that they don't need to learn the language before using it -- even though it's dramatically different from other languages.
Where other options exist, the others are probably better suited to the task.
I can't imagine what you'd think is better. Other languages have adopted features like first-class functions and closures as a direct result of influence from JavaScript. What does that indicate to you?
Taking it further, the prototypal approach to OO that JS uses is, without question, superior to the classical approach. As there are vanishingly few examples of other languages that use prototypes instead of classes, just about any language you can offer as a substitute would be, necessarily, inferior. (A simple example for you, repeating a popular meme: Today, the 'best practice' is to favor composition over inheritance. JS naturally lends itself to composition; unlike Java, C#, and similar languages. Alternately: If you're a fan of the GoF book, for some reason, you'll immediately notice that many of the patterns described there are unnecessary in JS.)
To cement the point, the feature of the language most criticized (its type system) is uniquely well-suited to its intended purpose, making it exceptionally well-fit for the web. (Other popular criticisms stem from pure, unadulterated, ignorance: The behavior of this, for example.)
See, what you've done is adopt a popular (on slashdot anyway) opinion of a language that you don't understand. That makes you feel good when you're praised for making vague criticisms (like the one above) and validated when you read (equally uninformed) posts from others.
I'm curious what solutions could be worse than JavaScript.
Java and Python would be examples of popular languages that would clearly be worse than JS on the web, each for different reasons.
Careful. On this site, that's flamebait. So is this:
The reason we use programming languages is to make it easier to write programs. A good programming language, then, can be judged on how much easier it is to use than other languages. What does that tell us about BASIC?
Slashdot Mirror
My opinion is irrelevant. An objective analysis of the claims made in each article should be sufficient for you to determine their quality. I seem to recall suggesting that you do exactly that, though I suspect that you haven't yet.
Pragmas are hacks now?
PHP will be around for a long time because any idiot (and I mean that) can have a go.
Isn't that a good thing? We use programming languages to make writing programs easier, after all.
I honestly have no idea how 'easy to use' became such a horrible thing. I get the whole 'you end up maintaining some amateurs crummy code' thing, sure. However, I've also seen enough inexcusably awful code from seasoned developers to put any stock in that argument.
He's only saying that because it's true.
When did PHP stop being "a fractal of bad design"
It never was. That site is laughably bad. Most people puzzled that out years ago. It's time to let it go.
That's why node.js is rightly describable as nothing more than a toy for people who don't know what they're doing.
I'm not sold on node myself, but I'm pretty sure the guys at PayPal, Yahoo, LinkedIn, Dow Jones, etc. just might be capable of making an informed decision.
I get it, you don't like javascript. Well, at least you don't think you like it -- it's pretty cool right now (on slashdot) to believe that it's irredeemably bad, so I'm not sure if you've actually formed your own opinion after taking the time to learn the language or not. Few people actually do take the time, after all, and not too many of those retain their simple black-and-white view afterward. Fewer still retain an overall negative opinion.
Even if you're one of those on the outside edge of the bell-curve, that believe alone isn't sufficient to convince others that the language is completely useless for a broad range of applications to which it is already being successfully applied.
It would, except for every conceivable use case.
I also enjoyed that movie. So much, in fact, that I watched a few other documentaries about fonts.
This is Slashdot so I'm thinking 'fleshlight'.
And nobody with an iota of intelligence worries about the afterlife
The greatest minds in history excepted, of course.
Yeah, but unlike Saddam I'd like to think we're not a bunch of assholes who would put an old video game ahead of the well-being of kids.
Because you spend every cent of your disposable income on charity, right?
If not, I'd love to know what you think is more important than starving kids. Is it a snack from the convenience store? A trip to the movies? The latest novel from your favorite author?
I also presume you live in the cheapest possible housing, subsisting on the least expensive food you can find, as you prioritize the well-being of other so much that you dare not waste a penny that could go to better the lives of poor, disadvantaged, children.
Really, if you don't, you must be some kind of unfeeling monster!
You're going to be absolutely shocked if you ever wander in to your local library!
Other than ineffectively complain on Slashdot, have you done anything about it?
It probably has a better chance than my book: Whitespace by example
without them, we cannot distinguish a panda bear who eats shoots and leaves from a mob hit-man who eats, shoots and leaves.
No Oxford comma? Mod parent down!
Which is why the AC distinguished them from one another.
To be honest, I'm not sure which one I'd trust more with that power...
You're trying to impose precision where none exists. I can certainly understand the impulse, but you'll save yourself a whole lot of trouble if you just accept the simple fact that language is naturally messy and imprecise.
If you can't, then at least just let this one go. It's really not worth the effort. What could you possibly hope to achieve?
Assuming you are religious, and you do sound so - you are automatically anti-all other religions in the world.
LOL, no. That's, quite possibly, the stupidest thing I'll read on Slashdot this week. Where did you come up with that nonsense?
We know better than to get excited about silly nonsense like this.
Otherwise, where you have a choice, JavaScript is NORMALLY not the best suited for any role other than client side web page code. Exceptions may exist.
That's a bit more reasonable. Though I wonder why you limit its utility like that? Is there something intrinsic to the language that makes you think it's less suitable than, for example, Python in situations where that language is well-suited? For clarity: JS can't replace PHP where it works well for reasons independent of the languages themselves (that's in the differences between node.js and mod_php), yet JS obviously can't compete with C where C shines, for obvious reasons directly related to the languages.
It's the ONLY choice for client-side web. As I said twice before, that's the one place nothing is worse or better - because you have no other choice.
You seem to forget that, for many years, it was not the only choice. JS handily beat the competition. You may be too young to remember those early days, so I won't hold it against you.
Since neither iOS nor most Android devices run Java applets, that means MOST users today won't run them. A "solution" that won't run at all for most users isn't a solution. You can't say "Java and JavaScript would both work, but JavaScript would be better".
Again, you forget your history. Java in the browser was effectively dead long before iOS and Android hit the scene. It lost out for a reason, after all. Java had its chance, there was more than a little excitement surrounding it, and it still failed miserably.
If you're advocating JavaScript as a server-side language, well that's just silly.
I'm not advocating anything, just calling out your opinion as unsupported and uninformed. (You've never explained your reasoning. I assume that's because there is none and your just repeating a meme.) Still, you'll find that JS on the server is getting quite popular. Even sites like PayPal have adopted it. Call me crazy, but I'm pretty sure they're well-aware of the alternatives and selected JS anyway.
If a key component of the language behaves in unintuitive, surprising, and troublesome ways, that's a valid criticism.
In the case of this, it's only surprising if you know absolutely nothing about the language. If it behaved the same was that it does in a language like Java, it wouldn't make any sense at all. Once you understand the basics of the language, it behaves exactly as you would expect. As I said before, that criticism stems from pure, unadulterated, ignorance. For whatever reason, people seem to think that they don't need to learn the language before using it -- even though it's dramatically different from other languages.
Another fun pun, is that the word for "grandmother" is the same as the word for "boobs".
... I'd love to know how that happened ...
Where other options exist, the others are probably better suited to the task.
I can't imagine what you'd think is better. Other languages have adopted features like first-class functions and closures as a direct result of influence from JavaScript. What does that indicate to you?
Taking it further, the prototypal approach to OO that JS uses is, without question, superior to the classical approach. As there are vanishingly few examples of other languages that use prototypes instead of classes, just about any language you can offer as a substitute would be, necessarily, inferior. (A simple example for you, repeating a popular meme: Today, the 'best practice' is to favor composition over inheritance. JS naturally lends itself to composition; unlike Java, C#, and similar languages. Alternately: If you're a fan of the GoF book, for some reason, you'll immediately notice that many of the patterns described there are unnecessary in JS.)
To cement the point, the feature of the language most criticized (its type system) is uniquely well-suited to its intended purpose, making it exceptionally well-fit for the web. (Other popular criticisms stem from pure, unadulterated, ignorance: The behavior of this, for example.)
See, what you've done is adopt a popular (on slashdot anyway) opinion of a language that you don't understand. That makes you feel good when you're praised for making vague criticisms (like the one above) and validated when you read (equally uninformed) posts from others.
I'm curious what solutions could be worse than JavaScript.
Java and Python would be examples of popular languages that would clearly be worse than JS on the web, each for different reasons.
Careful. On this site, that's flamebait. So is this:
The reason we use programming languages is to make it easier to write programs. A good programming language, then, can be judged on how much easier it is to use than other languages. What does that tell us about BASIC?