[fundabulousrIII]

I'm sorry, what don't you understand? Complexity is best discussed by those who introduce it.

To be clear: I said js is misplaced on the 'server' side and is a wart in general when applied in that context. Any educated comment on these sentiments?

[ovao]

> what don't you understand

Exactly what I asked.

> Any educated comment on these sentiments?

Without clarity on the sentiments themselves there's not a lot to elaborate on without simply fumbling in the dark. If the concern, though, is that, in Node, you live and die by an asynchronous event loop, I'd say that's not a small footgun. I don't think that's in dispute. I'd also say that the presence of footguns doesn't, by itself, disqualify a language from being used in any particular context.

As for JavaScript being a wart, I don't really agree with that sentiment. I think that's attributable to some pretty strong and level-headed language evolution making what was once a very blunt scripting instrument into something somewhat reasonably suited to larger-scale applications.

[defined]

JavaScript is objectively, demonstrably a badly-designed, error-generating language for which countless libraries, generators, and higher-level languages and frameworks such as Elm and TypeScript have been created to compensate for its shortcomings - and it most especially does not belong on the server side.

It is the poster child for the "If the only tool you have is a hammer..." maxim.

Its appeal derives almost completely from its presence in probably every major browser, where it was placed for DOM manipulation and was stressed way past its design envelope over time, leading to the increasingly dystopian web development landscape we progressively inhabit.

If it is ultimately victorious, it will be in spite of its design, not because of it. Those of us who are old enough to remember will cringe at the pain we endured over the years because of the widely used Intel 808x architecture as it evolved (small/medium/large/huge memory models, and segment registers, anyone?), not because it had the greatest merit, but because of its market penetration.

History repeats itself.

[ovao]

I really don't disagree on any particular point. I only take issue with the suggestion that it simply shouldn't be an option. In the past I probably would've said the same about PHP, which sits pretty squarely in the same camp as JavaScript for its "victory despite design".

All things considered, a craftsman simply uses a tool to do a job. Often it doesn't involve much fanfare. I wouldn't say that modern JavaScript is quite as blunt an instrument as a hammer, but hey, if you're good with a hammer...