[brabel]

You are arguing for the sake of arguing. OP said JS is not a good choice when performance and robustness is important... any programmer knows exactly what they mean, but I will spell it out for you as you clearly do not get it: if you're going to write a DB, you want it to be performant (run fast) and robust (does not fail or lose data, or get into a corrupt state easily). JS is absolutely not the first choice when performance is very important, but I concede it can run fast enough for some kinds of a applications... but would a DB written in JS be robust? The answer by anyone who knows anything about programming languages has to be a big NO!

Any language that has a dynamic & weak type system, and where monkey patching is not only allowed but used widely, cannot make a claim to leading to robust software.

I would argue that languages focusing on correctness are the ones that would have a good claim at producing more robust software. As you've asked, I would say that Rust, Ada, Haskell fit the bill... but even languages that focus on keeping simplicity and boring uniformity at scale, like Go and Java, could still make such claim (and lots of software written in them can be described as robust) a lot more than JS, which offers basically 0 features focused on correctness beyond the bare minimum.

[vaultec81]

Maybe javascript might not be the best choice in terms of high end/large databases. But it certainly is the best choice for web3 applications and lightweight nodejs software. There is also a golang edition of orbit-db.

> (does not fail or lose data, or get into a corrupt state easily)

The data is stored on IPFS primarily (Pick a number of different ipfs varieties, rust, golang, js). Oplog specific data is stored in a datastore-level instance, which utilizes c++ leveldown bindings. Code that is well tested and has never been proved to lose data due to being written in JS alone. Aside from that the programming language does not determine whether a developer creates crappy code. The developer does, horrible, inefficient, bug filled code can exist in any number of languages. Its really a matter of preference.

Side note: I used to absolutely hate JS until a began programming in it for many months. Originally programming Java

[wayneftw]

> You are arguing for the sake of arguing.

Nope. I actually just disagreed with you. I think JS is a robust language and I said why very clearly and politely.

You, however - well I stopped reading after your first sentence.

Good luck to you!

[brabel]

You start with " You should check your definition." and you think that is " actually just disagreed with you. I think JS is a robust language and I said why very clearly and politely."?

You didn't say why JS is robust, you twisted the word's definition to fit your point. Don't do that.

If your way of debating is to leave the debate when someone says something you don't like, then good luck working in IT.