[Darkbubba]

Dear Troll, I find you use of the word "zealot" to be amusing, ironic and predictable. In addition, during that entire rant you never once mentioned what you thought was a good language.

Now, to add to the real discussion. Aside from all the wonderful suggestions you received so for: once you have read all that you can and broken/learned first hand all you can, and if you are of the pattern persuasion I would look in to the functional language patterns. The Classical patterns, as found in most examples and resources these days, map poorly to JS. At least that is my opinion.

[netghost]

Amusingly, his post is actually more or less what Crockford says in the opening page or so of JavaScript the Good Parts.

[ludovicurbain]

good for you.

I haven't seen a perfect programming language yet, but the compromises offered by FORTRAN, C, Ada and lisp are really hard to beat, as the first three offer very competitive speed whereas the last one trades off about 50% speed for a lot of built-in metaprogramming.

It's really all about compromises, and JS fits no bill except "easy to learn for noobs", which imho is a non-issue for anyone considering long-term use.

(in case you didn't know, fortran has awesome arrays and awesome compilers, C has inline ASM and awesome compilers, Ada has increased execution security and lisp is lisp)

[lopatin]

JavaScript is harder to learn for noobs, it's just easier to get "hello world" working than other languages. I don't think anyone with a good grasp of JS would ever recommend it to someone as a first language.