[svtiger]

May want to remove from your "About Us" bio: "hates Java Script" -- can't say I disagree, but you might alienate potential converts -- really should inject as much positivity as possible. Any negative messaging will do nothing but harm.

[wdanilo]

I prefer to alienate potential converts than convert JavaScripters! Just joking of course. It is hard to hide hate to a non-language treated as a super cool language. But you are right, I've never thought about it this way. I will change it, thank you!

[the_cat_kittles]

in what way is javascript a non language? i write c, python and javascript- i dont see how one is any more of a language than another? you are baselessly pretentious

[wdanilo]

the_cat_kittles I did not wanted to hurt your feelings. Of course it is a language. By saying it is not I just wanted to express my strong anty-JS feelings, but they are of course very subjective :)

[imhoguy]

Have you tried ECMAScript 6+? You could reconsider your hate ;)

[SamUK96]

Shhh you may fool the guy and make him look silly, that's not nice! ;)

[d3ckard]

Well, it was pretty good ad for me, so maybe reconsider.

[wdanilo]

I will reconsider hiding my real feelings. I really feel I should not hide them ;)

[Jach]

Man people who would bail out of the entire project just because of one of the members' likes or dislikes on his bio snippet are petty, please don't optimize for those people...

[dwaltrip]

It's not some dramatic "bailing out of an entire project". A more realistic scenario would be:

> "Oh here, that link sounds interesting."

> "Hmm, another visual programing system, I wonder how it works."

> Read for a few minutes, then clicks link to the about page

> Reads part about hating javascript. "Huh.. I wonder why they hate it so much"

> Gets distracted, makes some coffee

> Comes back, and without really thinking about it, closes tab, and goes back to previous task

In this scenario, they might have possibly investigated further and checked the project out. Overall, most people probably won't care, but I would guess the statement is slightly net negative.

Taking a step back, this entire sub-thread is a fairly ridiculous bikeshedding, and I do feel a little bad about participating in it, heh.

[Can_Not]

JS devs encounter a lot of low effort BS/FUD from JS-haters who are clearly talking out of their ass or obviously haven't advanced their understanding of JS since 2005. If you're making something awesome, somebody's going to genuinely be interested if it's genuinely awesome regardless of their "fake language" background. So yeah, if I see "hates <literally any language>" in a profile, I'd probably assume the developer is pretentiously arrogant or will have the propensity to build a toxic community that focuses on bashing alternatives instead of building itself up.

[crawfordcomeaux]

Perhaps there's a way to present yourself authentically while still holding the door open for the Javascripters?

Would "Loves dogs, hates Java Script, willing to meet you in the middle if you disagree on either" be accurate?

[rexpop]

This was a super-valid position until Sept. 14, 2015, when Node.js and io.js combined to establish a stable runtime. From that day forward, JS/ES have been fast to change and stable.

[wdanilo]

I don't care what they done in terms of stable runtime. I mean, I care, but not in the context of the language itself. Language is all - combined! The runtime, syntax, libs, everything. I call it "experience" or "feeling". I like the idea to treat JS as web assembler, but as a language, JS is just a garbage. It will be garbage until you will be able to write code, that seems completely valid unless you are super JS geek and know that it will break. I will not reconsider my hate until you will be able to write `['10','10','10','10','10'].map(parseInt)` and get `[10, NaN, 2, 3, 4]` as a result (just a small example of many). Sorry if that puts you off.

[namuol]

Pet-peeve from a Javascript Apologist:

The `map(parseInt)` example is an obscure strawman that exists solely due to historical purposes; it's very difficult to change this sort of thing in a language because it would involve one of two things:

1. Change the API of `parseInt`, break everything

2. Change the API of `Array::map`, break everything

If you want JS devs to respect your voice you may want to attack the more fundamental problems with the language, like its lack of type-safety, rather than the remnants of its "upbringing".

[felipesabino]

> @horse_js: JavaScript. It isn’t meant to be hand-written;

https://twitter.com/horse_js/status/872243719889616897

:p