Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!panix!.POSTED.spitfire.i.gajendra.net!not-for-mail
From: cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross)
Newsgroups: comp.os.vms
Subject: Re: basic BASIC question
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2025 16:25:03 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC
Message-ID: <vo2nov$e5o$1@reader2.panix.com>
References: <vnipj8$3i2i9$1@dont-email.me> <67a4cc2d$0$708$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <vo2k7g$a7s$1@reader2.panix.com> <vo2mhs$30u76$1@dont-email.me>
Injection-Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2025 16:25:03 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader2.panix.com; posting-host="spitfire.i.gajendra.net:166.84.136.80";
	logging-data="14520"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@panix.com"
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010)
Originator: cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross)
Bytes: 3445
Lines: 66

In article <vo2mhs$30u76$1@dont-email.me>,
Arne Vajhøj  <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>On 2/6/2025 10:24 AM, Dan Cross wrote:
>> In article <67a4cc2d$0$708$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>,
>> Arne Vajhøj  <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>>> On 2/3/2025 1:24 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>>> On 2025-01-31, Dan Cross <cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net> wrote:
>>>>> If you really want to have a good time, look at how
>>>>> JavaScript deals with this.  Things aren't just true
>>>>> or false, they're truthy and falsy, and sometimes Nan.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=et8xNAc2ic8
>>>>
>>>> And we use this crap to build critical websites that our society and
>>>> general way of life now depend on. :-(
>>>>
>>>> And some even think it's a good idea to run this server-side. :-(
>>>
>>> JavaScript has had a huge market share in presentation layer
>>> in web applications for decades.
>>>
>>> Either companies don't know how to profit maximize or
>>> JavaScript is/was a good choice for this type
>>> of code.
>> 
>> Server side Javascript does not run on the browser.
>> 
>>> Small code bases, frequent releases and high user
>>> tolerance for small ooopses favor a language like
>>> JavaScript. Ada would not work well in this context
>>>from a business perspective.
>>>
>>> Code bases are not small anymore though. And TypeScript
>>> has taken huge chunks of market share from
>>> JavaScript in recent years.
>> 
>> Typescript is a better language.  JavaScript should
>> have been better than it was, but that shippe has sailed,
>> and the story has been told many times: it was ten days
>> from conception to ship, and the consequent lack of
>> polish shows.
>
>If JavaScript was unique in the web frontend world
>for lack of type safety, then the lack of type safety
>could be due to its history.

I didn't say anything about types, other than that TypeScript is
a better language than JavaScript.  TypeScript is a better
language; typing is of course part of that, but not the only
part.

>But it is not unique. Other popular languages like
>PHP and Python also has a relaxed approach to types.
>Past popular languages like Perl and VBS same.
>Web frontend is not like backend or embedded.

Non-sequitor: none of this has to do with why JavaScript is a
poor language.

PHP, by the way, is a horrible langauge; worse than JavaScript.
https://eev.ee/blog/2012/04/09/php-a-fractal-of-bad-design/

None of this is to say that these things are not _useful_;
they undeniably are.  That doesn't mean that they are _good_.

	- Dan C.