Today in JavaScript news

One word, Javascript. The intent behind it is the only thing that was ever good about it. This is what went right:

1. Lisp is good, let's take ideas from it.
2. Prototype-based object system.

This is what feels "ok..." to me:

1. Parens scare people off, let's use C syntax.

This is what went wrong with it:

1. Types are difficult, let's make them even worse and shitty so that web designers will be happy.
2. Everything is an object, well, more or less so (just don't try stuff on null), objects used for hashes (awesome, except for a few magic methods), broken for, kinda broken arrays, broken null exposing low-level nurupo, NaN, +Infinity, -Infinity, false and null (WTF), etc.
3. Lol whats prototypes, in sepples and javur we have classes. Prototype system fubared into something that would seem to please classtards, even though in the end it pleases nobody.
4. Management tards forced it on the market unpolished and untested; nobody really understood the issues of the language becuase not even their creators tried writing anything with it prior to release.
5. Java sells, let's call it Java durr hurr hurr (marketing/management retards). This helped making Javascript the most misunderstood language ever.
6. Standard library? Lol whats that?
7. Terrible, simplistic, broken and on top of that commonly misunderstood integration with web browsers.
8. Then the W3C comes to take an enterprise dump on Javascript and adds the DOM to it, with its enterprisey design and naming conventions to ensure anything you do with it feels like smashing your dick with a brick. (Thank goodness there's innerHTML to get shit done.)
9. Web designers, code snippets and all the bullshit around the web.
10. And last but not at all least, Internet Explorer and its intentionally shitty implementation.
11. ECMA selling out to Microsoft and writing a blasphemously queer and nauseating standard.

>>5
I shan't reply otherwise IWHBT

>>10
If you agree with the trolls, then the trolls win!

>>9
Excellent post. I love your work.

>>9,12
I agree! Good work! Love it.

I think the main problem is that programmers don't consider it a serious language. As they say, you can write FORTRAN in any language. A static class based system ala sepples and javur is not the only way to go. Yet, many programmers equate it with what programming is.

ECMAScript would have been better off today as a VM specification, though I don't think that was true at the time.

>>14
At some point it may actually go this way, given that every serious implementation of ECMAScript is now VM-based.

>>1
What? No exceptions? You can't possibly write ENTERPRISE software without exceptions! No exceptions.

>>16
You want to see something ENTERPRISE? I've got something so enterprise, it's like the Pocky in a Mozilla and Microsoft Pocky kiss.

$ wget -qO- http://www.w3.org/TR/IndexedDB/|grep -c "No exceptions"
59

>>17
NO EXCEPTIONS

1) Yes not news, but fine as a topic of conversation even if it is kind of old hat by now.
2) Well, except no. As mentioned towards the end of the post bitwise operations are defined up to 32 bits. This is to allow implementations to do type tagging and actually use 32 bit ints where appropriate (as mentioned in the comments). Merging separate types together happens in other places too. Javascript does it again for objects and arrays, as does php and lua (with tables). Internally the lua implementation has an array part and a hashtable part as I suspect do the other two.

Javashit