Fact: Evolution is a scientific fact. The process by which living organisms change to adapt to an environment has been studied. If you do not accept this as a fact you don't understand the meaning of the word.
The interesting part is the study of evolution, i.e. how the "process of evolution" could lead to such bio diversity is fascinating. There are many theories as to how that happened and is happening. Most of those theories are not proven. We do know we know that our current form is evolved from a previous form. We know that we share 98% 0f the same genetic code as chimps. These are facts.
What is not know with certainty is the precise path and ancestry of our evolution.
Seriously. You undertake a project like an OS. There are a lot of technical issues involved that sort of project. Do you choose a language that has a proven history or do you choose to use a language that is, by definition, not for this sort of application? Also, since they are dumping out assembler, and using NASM to compile code, it has ceased to be C#. It has become a hybrid system, just like every other OS. They've spent a lot of time using the wrong language and, in the end, proved nothing.
The argument that Linux won or lost the desk top is moot. It won some, lost most. The problem wasn't Linux, it was the microsoft monopoly and influence in business. Even though Linux was a superior product, the fortune 500 resists change. This is why IBM OS/2 failed as well.
The desktop as we know it is going away. Sure, engineers will have their "workstations" (desktops really), but the general consumer is going mobile. Windows will dies as a predominant platform and be replaced by a mobile OS. That will probably be based on FreeBSD or Linux.
Mainframes are dead, dude. Modern "cloud" computing is all about web UI, and it doesn't need no X server.
Well, the clock speed of processors are reaching limitations of current technology. The CPU vendors are adding more and more CPU cores. And people have called me ignorant for my post. Wow.
I, myself, used remote X rendering one. Not very easy to understand and setup, that one. VNC's much more straightforward (and can reliably work over longer distances too).
Yea, I use VNC sometimes and it SUCKS. It is slow even on a local machine. Create a virtual machine using QEMU and try to use the console. This is VNC. Next, either SSH or expose the X11 ports, and run an application. It is totally usable. This is the future we should be preparing for it instead of ignoring it.
Wayland doesn't support network transparency the same way as eg. TCP/IP doesn't support encryption.
That is exactly right, and that's exactly what I've proposed. Augment X with extensions to provide the things that are missing. Don't trash it all and re-write a new interface. The lost value in losing X is immeasurable.
TCP/IP does not support encryption. It wasn't intended too. X doesn't support audio/video. It wasn't intended too. SSL provides encryption on top of TCP/IP. They didn't re-write the whole networking layer just for encryption. Why should they re-write the display layer for audio/video?
It's a myth that Wayland lacks network transparency. It currently doesn't DEFINE it, but it doesn't LACK it.
OMG, that is the worst twist of logic that I have ever seen. That's like saying my Jeep doesn't lack flight, it just doesn't define or come with wings. NOT HAVING IT AS A DEMONSTRABLE DESIGN GOAL MEANS THAT IT DOESN'T HAVE IT. In other words, Wayland lacks network transparency.
Yes, it does need some cleanup, but every mature piece of software does. The number of man-decades of expertise and knowledge embodied in X is staggering. You will not be able to re-create what it does in less than 15 years of vigorous development with a large team.
I am not sure about the audio/video etc support for modern devices and hardware
Standardized extensions are the way to go. Create a group, publish an RFC, create an implementation, hope for adoption. That's the democracy of open source.
I would be the last to deny that X11 has served us loyally and well for decades, but if the user expects a more modern interface, there is little point in attempting to stop the tide.
When did you start using Linux? What was your previous computer OS?
There is NOTHING provided in Wayland that can't be done in X. Furthermore, Wayland is temporary. It will not scale to the many para-virtualized environment described. The "desktop" is dying, and this is only one last chance for idiots to make Linux irrelevant. With X, Linux will be ideally suited for the computers to come.
Stop the tide? Well, ignorance sure is corrosive, I'll give you that.
This is a mistake! X is one of the most flexible and useful systems today. Granted dumb users won't ever realize what they have in front of them, but the utility of X should not be under-estimated. I DO use it on a regular basis. Eliminating X, or even making it a second class citizen, is a huge loss in the philosophy that has allowed UNIX to survive for decades.
What will happen is that X will be "supported" as an X emulation layer on top of the latest display layer. Unfortunately, apps will abandon X because it will no longer be vigorously supported. Then it will be lost.
Here's what X can do today that we will lose: Run applications on one virtual or physical machine and display on another. This is not the same as VNC or terminal services.
I hear all the dumbed down Linux users saying, that this isn't important, but like the people making these decisions, it is the point of view of ignorance. Computers are going in two directions..... Smaller devices and huge systems with many virtual machines. The huge systems with many virtual machines SCREAMS X for application display management. a 1:1 virtual desktop per virtual machine us unmanageable, but a window per app is. Eventually, there will only be a para-virtual manager and para-virtualized machines, each running apps. The VMs can be saved, restored, snap-shotted, backed-up, branched, etc. This will be the nature of how we run apps when we have a huge number of CPUs. X is a better fit now for the future, than any Windows/Mac inspired "improvement."
This is another Ill that is a direct result of people coming to Linux from a Mac or Windows background. They want to bring lesser ideas because they don't understand the capabilities of what they already have.
"I don't recall" work great for Ronald Reagan. I'm sure there is precedent that it is acceptable under oath.
Second, and this is a technical solution, we need a forked compression system, where two different passwords give you two different sets of contents. Where encrypted data looks like empty space on the faux system. When the faux system is engaged, the encrypted data is destroyed. Hopefully one uses backup.
There are so few things affect the quantify the quality of a cable. Not the least is the current, frequency, and voltage of the signal. Too high a current? You need more metal. Too high a voltage? You need better insulators. Too high a frequency? Then you need noise immunity and impedance matching with coax or twisted pair. Yes, I know this is an over simplification, but a little bit of research will show how nonsensical the high quality cable claims are.
This is my favourite audiophool scam: "Simply put these are very danceable cables. "
All the fun and cool stuff that is easy enough for a beginner is off-the-shelf these days. Why bother learning to program? The interesting stuff that is not off the shelf is no longer easy enough for a beginner who knows "X" to write programX.
Can we stop getting bitcoin spam. It is a stupid idea. Seriously, for a monetary system to have value it has to be widely agreed upon. Bitcoins are nothing more than electronic wampum, eWampum or iWampum, if you will. (Those are my trademarks!:-) The value of a bit coin is no more or less a monetary system than is the value of baseball cards, sure, you can buy, sell, and trade them, but they are not actual currency and are not likely to be. In limited circles they make take on as a token, similar to chips at Las Vagas, but that isn't money.
What you, as the candidate do, when you've had that "D'Oh" moment on the way back to the airport, is the fire off an email with the solution.
Impractical
The trick is this: mask out the even and odd parts of the unsigned into into two separate ones. Shift one over one bit. Add them.
You've just taken three instructions to parallel add every other bit. Rinse, lather, and repeat (shifting by two bits, then four bits, and so on, until you reach half the bit length of the unsigned int type).
Or, you could make a lookup table of 256 entries each with the number of ones per byte. And the lookup of the four bytes of an unsigned int. Or even, 65536 entries twice.
Once, I interviewed a person for a hardware/software interfacing job who presented himself as a hardware guru who was the only sane man on his previous contract position. I drew a circuit diagram for him and asked him to identify its function, and it stumped him. I didn't feel too bad about doing that.
This isn't "Stump the Candidate," that's merely questioning them on their credentials. "Stump the Candidate" is an interviewer "ego trip" where they know an arcane technique or algorithm for a specific problem set, and ask the candidate to come up with it on the spot. Its patently ridiculous. If you are familiar with the algorithm, its easy. If not, you'll look like an idiot. I've seen candidates put through that, and have been put through it myself.
At one company, Constant Contact, the interviewer didn't even understand the question he was asking. How do you find if two singly linked lists converge. While there are a number of ways of solving that problem, he was looking for a specific method, but he didn't even understand the characteristics of the solution and thus could not even describe how it worked. Worse yet, he assumed it worked far more efficiently than it did. When I got home, I did some research and found the method he was TRYING to describe, but he had no clue as to how it really worked and didn't even understand its performance characteristics.
I have been on both sides of the interview table and the most senseless interview technique is "white board problem solving." If you've interviewed recently, you'll be in a small room with a white board and asked how you'd solve a particular problem. The problem is one of those "non trivial, unless you already know the solution" problems that you are supposed to figure out on an interview, in front of an interviewer. I'm sorry, but I've driven home, and had the typical "Doh!" moment where it becomes obvious. Why didn't it happen during the interview? Because human beings are like that. If you've solved the problem previously (on a similar type of problem) then you look like a start, if you hadn't, well tough luck.
These have nothing to do with coding. NOTHING.
The next type of interview BS is the written test. Given by overly academic management people who have no idea how to code to begin with.
I guess the trick, if there is a trick, is to know the subject matter that the interviewee is supposed to know, and be able to evaluate their ability. You can't have non-technical MBA types trying to quantify qualities they do not understand.
I'm assuming from your reasonable tone, you are a reasonable person. This is slashdot, so I may be mistaken.:-)
Javascripts proponents, for some reason I can not understand, accept the languages copious short comings as a matter of fact. Even you made the twisted argument that inheritance is "not classical class based," and I don't even understand what you are trying to say. You can't inherit in any reasonable terms, you can implement on a class by class basis manually, but the language is actually hostile to the practice.
More over, the concepts of "object" and "method" have been conflated. Its the wild wild west, there are no rules, there is no enforcement of anything. It just fails.
I would think in 2011, languages would be better than this nonsense.
Yes, 1.0 vs "1.0" is pretty obvious, however, if you want to assign an object a value of 1.0 or "1.0" the object should understand the type of data it contains. It does not. Adding two objects which have been assigned 1.0 do not result in 2
The only place where OOP is an "established term" is in bad Java textbooks
sigh, I'm sorry, the only word I can come up with is ignorance. Where do you think java came from? Or C++ before that? The concepts of "object oriented design" have been around for decades are are not language specific.
Look up Grady Booch. Follow all the links. Object Oriented Design is type of design, not a feature of a language. Most languages can be used to implement a good object oriented design, javascript can not. Do not try to redefine decades of work for a crappy ass web script.
I'm sorry, having one "type" is not strong typing.
The definition of "object-oriented" does not include "inheritance" in general, because it is not restricted to class-based languages (note that it is object-oriented, not class-oriented), and inheritance only makes sense when you talk about classes.
Umm, I'm not sure where you learned how to program, but "object oriented" certainly is all about classes, objects, polymorphism, inheritance, data hiding, etc. Redefining establish terms is not a valid argument style. Jeez, even wikipedia has it right, what's your excuse?
And you *think* that is "working?" I'm sorry, javascript isn't just a disaster, its also causing wide spread brain damage. To paraphrase a great mind, Javascript is so bad that it isn't even wrong. In your reply, you create a perfect example of why it is so bad. There is no expressly numerical type. There is no "type knowledge" within the object where two numbers would know that "+" means add and not append. Instead, even though you initialized them with clearly numeric data, you can't use them as numbers implicitly. I would even accept assigning a variable "1.0" would cause it to be a string and 1.0 would cause it to be a number, but no, either way you ALWAYS have to cast a number to be a number, which is stupid and error prone.
For decades a lot of effort and thinking have gone into making programming languages better, yet, javascript, which embodies none of these advances, is what is used on the browser. The problem with discussing why it is broken is that the javascript hostages have learned to love their captor.
Two objects that have always contained numerical values, were assigned numerical values, are treated as strings. You always have to explicitly cast them as numbers. Which is bogus. Just the typing alone hurts my fingers.
Javascript has scope -- it's quite well defined
Yes, its well defined as being almost pointless, but, yes, you are right it has "scope."
Object oriented does not mean classes
Umm, yes it does. You may call them what you wish, but "object oriented" has a definition and means something. Inheritance, polymorphism, etc. Of which, javascript has not.
Javascript may be a standard, but it is a bad "standard."
The problem with javascript is that it is one of the WORST languages and environments. I dare to say Brandan owes the whole industry a great big apology. If he were japanese, there is a traditional act he should perform. Javascript doesn't have types to speak of, doesn't handle numbers very well, I mean seriously "+" appends two numbers? No scope to speak of. It looks object oriented, but has no real notion of classes. No inheritance. All of the features that have made languages "safer" and "easier" to program in, javascript lacks. I can't think of one innovative or positive aspect of javascript, and lament that it is, alas, the only option at this point. Visual Basic is a better language, and I hate VB too.
Javascript is a hack by a person who didn't know better and we are stuck with it. I shake my head. For decades people have been creating new computer languages. ruby, java, perl, erlang, c++, c, pascal, basic, cobol, fortran, etc. All of these had an objective, to allow some some form of expressiveness or simplicity. Yet, javascript is on all the browsers. Irony for sure.
Slashdot Mirror
Fact: Evolution is a scientific fact.
The process by which living organisms change to adapt to an environment has been studied. If you do not accept this as a fact you don't understand the meaning of the word.
The interesting part is the study of evolution, i.e. how the "process of evolution" could lead to such bio diversity is fascinating. There are many theories as to how that happened and is happening. Most of those theories are not proven. We do know we know that our current form is evolved from a previous form. We know that we share 98% 0f the same genetic code as chimps. These are facts.
What is not know with certainty is the precise path and ancestry of our evolution.
Seriously. You undertake a project like an OS. There are a lot of technical issues involved that sort of project. Do you choose a language that has a proven history or do you choose to use a language that is, by definition, not for this sort of application? Also, since they are dumping out assembler, and using NASM to compile code, it has ceased to be C#. It has become a hybrid system, just like every other OS. They've spent a lot of time using the wrong language and, in the end, proved nothing.
The argument that Linux won or lost the desk top is moot. It won some, lost most. The problem wasn't Linux, it was the microsoft monopoly and influence in business. Even though Linux was a superior product, the fortune 500 resists change. This is why IBM OS/2 failed as well.
The desktop as we know it is going away. Sure, engineers will have their "workstations" (desktops really), but the general consumer is going mobile. Windows will dies as a predominant platform and be replaced by a mobile OS. That will probably be based on FreeBSD or Linux.
Mainframes are dead, dude. Modern "cloud" computing is all about web UI, and it doesn't need no X server.
Well, the clock speed of processors are reaching limitations of current technology. The CPU vendors are adding more and more CPU cores. And people have called me ignorant for my post. Wow.
I, myself, used remote X rendering one. Not very easy to understand and setup, that one. VNC's much more straightforward (and can reliably work over longer distances too).
Yea, I use VNC sometimes and it SUCKS. It is slow even on a local machine. Create a virtual machine using QEMU and try to use the console. This is VNC. Next, either SSH or expose the X11 ports, and run an application. It is totally usable. This is the future we should be preparing for it instead of ignoring it.
Wayland doesn't support network transparency the same way as eg. TCP/IP doesn't support encryption.
That is exactly right, and that's exactly what I've proposed. Augment X with extensions to provide the things that are missing. Don't trash it all and re-write a new interface. The lost value in losing X is immeasurable.
TCP/IP does not support encryption. It wasn't intended too. X doesn't support audio/video. It wasn't intended too. SSL provides encryption on top of TCP/IP. They didn't re-write the whole networking layer just for encryption. Why should they re-write the display layer for audio/video?
It's a myth that Wayland lacks network transparency. It currently doesn't DEFINE it, but it doesn't LACK it.
OMG, that is the worst twist of logic that I have ever seen. That's like saying my Jeep doesn't lack flight, it just doesn't define or come with wings. NOT HAVING IT AS A DEMONSTRABLE DESIGN GOAL MEANS THAT IT DOESN'T HAVE IT. In other words, Wayland lacks network transparency.
X is old and crumbling around
Yes, it does need some cleanup, but every mature piece of software does. The number of man-decades of expertise and knowledge embodied in X is staggering. You will not be able to re-create what it does in less than 15 years of vigorous development with a large team.
I am not sure about the audio/video etc support for modern devices and hardware
Standardized extensions are the way to go. Create a group, publish an RFC, create an implementation, hope for adoption. That's the democracy of open source.
I would be the last to deny that X11 has served us loyally and well for decades, but if the user expects a more modern interface, there is little point in attempting to stop the tide.
When did you start using Linux? What was your previous computer OS?
There is NOTHING provided in Wayland that can't be done in X. Furthermore, Wayland is temporary. It will not scale to the many para-virtualized environment described. The "desktop" is dying, and this is only one last chance for idiots to make Linux irrelevant. With X, Linux will be ideally suited for the computers to come.
Stop the tide? Well, ignorance sure is corrosive, I'll give you that.
This is a mistake! X is one of the most flexible and useful systems today. Granted dumb users won't ever realize what they have in front of them, but the utility of X should not be under-estimated. I DO use it on a regular basis. Eliminating X, or even making it a second class citizen, is a huge loss in the philosophy that has allowed UNIX to survive for decades.
What will happen is that X will be "supported" as an X emulation layer on top of the latest display layer. Unfortunately, apps will abandon X because it will no longer be vigorously supported. Then it will be lost.
Here's what X can do today that we will lose: Run applications on one virtual or physical machine and display on another. This is not the same as VNC or terminal services.
I hear all the dumbed down Linux users saying, that this isn't important, but like the people making these decisions, it is the point of view of ignorance. Computers are going in two directions..... Smaller devices and huge systems with many virtual machines. The huge systems with many virtual machines SCREAMS X for application display management. a 1:1 virtual desktop per virtual machine us unmanageable, but a window per app is. Eventually, there will only be a para-virtual manager and para-virtualized machines, each running apps. The VMs can be saved, restored, snap-shotted, backed-up, branched, etc. This will be the nature of how we run apps when we have a huge number of CPUs. X is a better fit now for the future, than any Windows/Mac inspired "improvement."
This is another Ill that is a direct result of people coming to Linux from a Mac or Windows background. They want to bring lesser ideas because they don't understand the capabilities of what they already have.
Using true crypt plausible deniability.
"I don't recall" work great for Ronald Reagan. I'm sure there is precedent that it is acceptable under oath.
Second, and this is a technical solution, we need a forked compression system, where two different passwords give you two different sets of contents. Where encrypted data looks like empty space on the faux system. When the faux system is engaged, the encrypted data is destroyed. Hopefully one uses backup.
The theory is that the expensive cables will have more durable connectors and more precise impedance matching.
Its a digital signal. It works or it doesn't. Also, there are specifications for HDMI that cables must match.
There are so few things affect the quantify the quality of a cable. Not the least is the current, frequency, and voltage of the signal. Too high a current? You need more metal. Too high a voltage? You need better insulators. Too high a frequency? Then you need noise immunity and impedance matching with coax or twisted pair. Yes, I know this is an over simplification, but a little bit of research will show how nonsensical the high quality cable claims are.
This is my favourite audiophool scam:
"Simply put these are very danceable cables. "
http://www.pearcable.com/sub_products_anjou_sc.htm
Why can't we prosecute these criminals for fraud?
All the fun and cool stuff that is easy enough for a beginner is off-the-shelf these days. Why bother learning to program? The interesting stuff that is not off the shelf is no longer easy enough for a beginner who knows "X" to write programX.
Can we stop getting bitcoin spam. It is a stupid idea. :-) The value of a bit coin is no more or less a monetary system than is the value of baseball cards, sure, you can buy, sell, and trade them, but they are not actual currency and are not likely to be. In limited circles they make take on as a token, similar to chips at Las Vagas, but that isn't money.
Seriously, for a monetary system to have value it has to be widely agreed upon. Bitcoins are nothing more than electronic wampum, eWampum or iWampum, if you will. (Those are my trademarks!
What you, as the candidate do, when you've had that "D'Oh" moment on the way back to the airport, is the fire off an email with the solution.
Impractical
The trick is this: mask out the even and odd parts of the unsigned into into two separate ones. Shift one over one bit. Add them.
You've just taken three instructions to parallel add every other bit. Rinse, lather, and repeat (shifting by two bits, then four bits, and so on, until you reach half the bit length of the unsigned int type).
Or, you could make a lookup table of 256 entries each with the number of ones per byte. And the lookup of the four bytes of an unsigned int. Or even, 65536 entries twice.
Once, I interviewed a person for a hardware/software interfacing job who presented himself as a hardware guru who was the only sane man on his previous contract position. I drew a circuit diagram for him and asked him to identify its function, and it stumped him. I didn't feel too bad about doing that.
This isn't "Stump the Candidate," that's merely questioning them on their credentials. "Stump the Candidate" is an interviewer "ego trip" where they know an arcane technique or algorithm for a specific problem set, and ask the candidate to come up with it on the spot. Its patently ridiculous. If you are familiar with the algorithm, its easy. If not, you'll look like an idiot. I've seen candidates put through that, and have been put through it myself.
At one company, Constant Contact, the interviewer didn't even understand the question he was asking. How do you find if two singly linked lists converge. While there are a number of ways of solving that problem, he was looking for a specific method, but he didn't even understand the characteristics of the solution and thus could not even describe how it worked. Worse yet, he assumed it worked far more efficiently than it did. When I got home, I did some research and found the method he was TRYING to describe, but he had no clue as to how it really worked and didn't even understand its performance characteristics.
I have been on both sides of the interview table and the most senseless interview technique is "white board problem solving." If you've interviewed recently, you'll be in a small room with a white board and asked how you'd solve a particular problem. The problem is one of those "non trivial, unless you already know the solution" problems that you are supposed to figure out on an interview, in front of an interviewer. I'm sorry, but I've driven home, and had the typical "Doh!" moment where it becomes obvious. Why didn't it happen during the interview? Because human beings are like that. If you've solved the problem previously (on a similar type of problem) then you look like a start, if you hadn't, well tough luck.
These have nothing to do with coding. NOTHING.
The next type of interview BS is the written test. Given by overly academic management people who have no idea how to code to begin with.
I guess the trick, if there is a trick, is to know the subject matter that the interviewee is supposed to know, and be able to evaluate their ability. You can't have non-technical MBA types trying to quantify qualities they do not understand.
I'm assuming from your reasonable tone, you are a reasonable person. This is slashdot, so I may be mistaken. :-)
Javascripts proponents, for some reason I can not understand, accept the languages copious short comings as a matter of fact. Even you made the twisted argument that inheritance is "not classical class based," and I don't even understand what you are trying to say. You can't inherit in any reasonable terms, you can implement on a class by class basis manually, but the language is actually hostile to the practice.
More over, the concepts of "object" and "method" have been conflated. Its the wild wild west, there are no rules, there is no enforcement of anything. It just fails.
I would think in 2011, languages would be better than this nonsense.
Yes, 1.0 vs "1.0" is pretty obvious, however, if you want to assign an object a value of 1.0 or "1.0" the object should understand the type of data it contains. It does not. Adding two objects which have been assigned 1.0 do not result in 2
The only place where OOP is an "established term" is in bad Java textbooks
sigh, I'm sorry, the only word I can come up with is ignorance. Where do you think java came from? Or C++ before that? The concepts of "object oriented design" have been around for decades are are not language specific.
Look up Grady Booch. Follow all the links. Object Oriented Design is type of design, not a feature of a language. Most languages can be used to implement a good object oriented design, javascript can not. Do not try to redefine decades of work for a crappy ass web script.
It's not bogus, it's called "strong typing"
I'm sorry, having one "type" is not strong typing.
The definition of "object-oriented" does not include "inheritance" in general, because it is not restricted to class-based languages (note that it is object-oriented, not class-oriented), and inheritance only makes sense when you talk about classes.
Umm, I'm not sure where you learned how to program, but "object oriented" certainly is all about classes, objects, polymorphism, inheritance, data hiding, etc. Redefining establish terms is not a valid argument style. Jeez, even wikipedia has it right, what's your excuse?
parseInt(obj.one) + parseInt(obj.two)
And you *think* that is "working?"
I'm sorry, javascript isn't just a disaster, its also causing wide spread brain damage. To paraphrase a great mind, Javascript is so bad that it isn't even wrong. In your reply, you create a perfect example of why it is so bad. There is no expressly numerical type. There is no "type knowledge" within the object where two numbers would know that "+" means add and not append. Instead, even though you initialized them with clearly numeric data, you can't use them as numbers implicitly. I would even accept assigning a variable "1.0" would cause it to be a string and 1.0 would cause it to be a number, but no, either way you ALWAYS have to cast a number to be a number, which is stupid and error prone.
For decades a lot of effort and thinking have gone into making programming languages better, yet, javascript, which embodies none of these advances, is what is used on the browser. The problem with discussing why it is broken is that the javascript hostages have learned to love their captor.
Since when has "+" appended 2 numbers?
Two objects that have always contained numerical values, were assigned numerical values, are treated as strings. You always have to explicitly cast them as numbers. Which is bogus. Just the typing alone hurts my fingers.
Javascript has scope -- it's quite well defined
Yes, its well defined as being almost pointless, but, yes, you are right it has "scope."
Object oriented does not mean classes
Umm, yes it does. You may call them what you wish, but "object oriented" has a definition and means something. Inheritance, polymorphism, etc. Of which, javascript has not.
Javascript may be a standard, but it is a bad "standard."
The problem with javascript is that it is one of the WORST languages and environments. I dare to say Brandan owes the whole industry a great big apology. If he were japanese, there is a traditional act he should perform. Javascript doesn't have types to speak of, doesn't handle numbers very well, I mean seriously "+" appends two numbers? No scope to speak of. It looks object oriented, but has no real notion of classes. No inheritance. All of the features that have made languages "safer" and "easier" to program in, javascript lacks. I can't think of one innovative or positive aspect of javascript, and lament that it is, alas, the only option at this point. Visual Basic is a better language, and I hate VB too.
Javascript is a hack by a person who didn't know better and we are stuck with it. I shake my head. For decades people have been creating new computer languages. ruby, java, perl, erlang, c++, c, pascal, basic, cobol, fortran, etc. All of these had an objective, to allow some some form of expressiveness or simplicity. Yet, javascript is on all the browsers. Irony for sure.