The Anti-JavaScript Conspiracy

THE GOOD
- JavaScript is adopted in every significant browser, and as so it is one of the most popular programming languages in the world.
- JavaScript is a good programming language. Most developers agree with this. It's down to earth, has a good enough feature set, implements good concepts from both the object oriented and functional programming mindsets.

THE BAD
- JavaScript is incomplete. Several functional programming features that'd make sense in it are lacking.
- JavaScript is insecure. There's no module system, it's impossible to encapsulate things properly.
- JavaScript is browser only. The lack of a decent standard pushes people away from server-side and compiled JavaScript.

THE UGLY
- Million dollar companies are interested in million dollar franchises. Java, C# make a lot of money for a lot of people.
- Companies are shit-scared of anything they can't control. Even if their product is good and everybody wants to use it, it must be their product. It is no wonder C++ isn't nearly as popular as it was a few years ago. C++ wasn't Sun's, wasn't Microsoft's, wasn't Adobe's; it was Bjarne's.
- The number of JavaScript developers is growing exponentially. The more people use the Internet, the more JavaScript developers show up. What if they decise to use their dear language in their desktop applications? Who could stop them? What would be the faith of Java and .NET?
- JavaScript is, at the same time, both a free language (because it's easy to implement and widely adopted in browsers, the commonest pieces of software today) and a controlled one (the ECMA standard obeys the decisions of giant corporate players).

CONNECT THE DOTS.

>>38
It's a nice language

EIEIO

cc/++
Call with current Sepples?

it's impossible to encapsulate things properly.
sorry, just had to point this out:

var get_x;
var set_x;
(function(){
  var x = 0;
  get_x = function(){ return x; };
  set_x = function(n){ x = n; };
})();

alert(x); // x is undefined here
          // the only way to access it is through get_x() and set_x()
set_x(42);
alert(get_x()); // get_x() returns 42

>>44
I hope no one would be satisfied by that in place of a real module system. That's just object nonsenery to abuse things to get a private member, and doesn't even do so "properly" by any stretch of the imagination.

>>45
i don't see you providing any examples of how you think any language does it "properly". it's trivial to create a "real module system" in javascript, but most people don't bother because there's really no point.

>>36 must return to whatever circlejerkful forum he came from.

>>46
i don't see you providing any examples of how you think any language does it "properly".
That is correct, I have not provided any examples.

Why are you confusing private members for a module system anyway?

>>48
why are you confusing a module system for encapsulating things properly?

>>49
That language is held over from >>1. I'm just here to point out that your solutions are all GOSUB quality.