On the other hand, sometimes it really makes sense to strike out and define a new, higher standard for code style and paradigm in a given language, or at least to improve somewhat on the style and paradigm that's handed to you.
JavaScript used to be a messy language "not fit for professional use" (see popular JS books from the year 2000 :shudder:), but it turns out most of the problem was how people were using it.
JS code being written today looks like an entirely different language compared to early idiomatic "JavaScripts" one could use to make pages "more dynamic".
JavaScript today wouldn't be recognizable to a JavaScript developer 6 years ago, especially when using class syntax, destructing, and async/await, among many other syntax additions.
Actually it was very messy. People were encouraged to use it as a write-only imperative scripting language.
People thought VBScript was more powerful. JavaScript was like that attention-seeking red-headed stepchild that you see at family reunions.
There's a good reason Douglas Crockford re-introduced JavaScript as "the wwwrld's most misunderstood programming language." He saw beauty within that others didn't.
That's something I don't really understand. The language is a garbage-collected C-like. If you don't abuse objects/this/.call, plain Javascript is very readable. What made it a "write-only imperative scripting language"?
If you look at the "JavaScripts" that were floating around at the time (try looking up dynamicdrive.com from around the year 2003) I think you'll understand what I mean.
JavaScript used to be a messy language "not fit for professional use" (see popular JS books from the year 2000 :shudder:), but it turns out most of the problem was how people were using it.
JS code being written today looks like an entirely different language compared to early idiomatic "JavaScripts" one could use to make pages "more dynamic".