[arnorhs]

I don't really feel like being the next Perl is a bad thing, contrary to the article's premise.

However, the author is making a lot of unbacked and sensational claims. I feel inclined to comment on each part.

> everyone hates [Perl] because it’s “too hard to maintain” and too “strange.”

I didn't know everyone hates Perl and I also didn't know those were the reason. Surely we don't want strange languages? </sarcasm>

> global variables in JavaScript have been at the root of nearly every client-side security exploit to date.

Where does this information come from?

> In the mean time, to work around some of these issues, JavaScript is still being used much like an Assembly language.

How is javascript like assembly?

> We are seeing a similar explosion of packages (libraries), like Perl did, which led to the development of CPAN (you could akin this to the jQuery plugin ecosystem, which is neither as formal, reliable, nor as convenient or automated.)

Also worth mentioning is node's NPM, in which case the above argument is not true. And also, github and great search engines did not exist at the time that CPAN came out, and it's hard to imagine it would have gained the same amount of traction, because it's simply not necessary for the most part.

> There’s a similar explosion of JavaScript implementations on server side and in other languages, leading to issues with compatibility and runtime bugs.

What is this based on? I haven't seen many problems with compatibility and runtime bugs in the Node ecosystem at all. However I've never used Rhino, and perhaps that's what he's talking about. Does the author have any experience with Node?

> Still don’t believe that JavaScript is the new Perl? Compare jQuery to Perl CGI. Nobody actually does plain “JavaScript” programming for the web anymore, not really anyway. Do they use the core language? Yes. But we no longer use any of the built-in JavaScript->HTML functionality directly.

Only holds limited truth for browser development. Everybody using jquery is using plain Javascript. They are interfacing with the DOM API through jQuery and using the jQuery library. But the comparison is like saying anybody who uses a 3rd party library in Java is not using the real language. A language is not the API that you're using.

> jQuery is the glue that holds together the JavaScript ecosystem, provides browser compatibility, and it admittedly does a pretty good job.

what?

> however, sooner or later, the lack of language constructs like truly enforceable namespace boundaries, and the general mess created when teams get a little bit bigger is going to set in.

Name spacing is easily solved using module loaders and proper scoping.

> This is seen over and over as the new wave of developers comes into corporate life: Larger companies try it out, then decide it’s costing measurably, then switch back.

It would be interesting to know which large companies have been trying it out and then deciding it's costing them too much money and switching back.

> We ARE inherently lazy and most of us will ignore nearly any best practice or principle once “that deadline” gets too close.

Sorry, this just means you're a shitty developer and/or can't manage deadlines very well.

> Still, you don’t see that many big Python and Ruby shops either (Google is an exception,)

His exception is a pretty large one. And besides that, which companies has the author studied?

I'm not going to comment on any of the Java claims, since I don't have that much experience with Java.

All in all this article is incredibly biased towards Java and affected by large amount of disinformation about Javascript in general.

[fruchtose]

I agree with a lot of what you said, but I can see one area where I can see what the author is trying to say.

> How is javascript like assembly?

You're right that JavaScript is not like assembly; it's more like bytecode. A number of different languages compile to JavaScript (CoffeeScript, TypeKit, Fay), which is then interpreted. While the intent of JavaScript is that it should be readable by humans, in practice this does not happen thanks to production minification. This is more like bytecode. For example, you can Java .class file with a hex editor, but you'll need software to do that, or a hex editor and a lot of time.

tl;dr: The author means to say that JavaScript is used as a building block for other languages used to write client-side logic.

[arnorhs]

Ok, I can see that point. I guess the big difference is that not many people write in bytecode, but a lot of people (majority in my experience, which might change) write in pure Javascript

[azakai]

> I guess the big difference is that not many people write in bytecode, but a lot of people (majority in my experience, which might change) write in pure Javascript

That's purely a matter of preference. If you want, you can write in Java, C# or C++ and compile that to JavaScript, many major websites use that approach.

The fact that many people still write pure JavaScript shows the opposite of what the article says: People like it and are productive with it. If they were not, they would more often write in something else and compile to it.

[fruchtose]

Oh, definitely. I write in JavaScript myself. I understand what the author is trying to convey, but both analogies (assembly and bytecode) are wrong in their own ways.

[mattacular]

Yeah everyone uses jQuery on the browser right now, but that isn't true on the server. I don't know why you'd want jQuery on your Node app...

But anyway, eventually I think jQuery might not be as useful once most every browser has a sane implementation of the new ECMAScript harmony. But who knows, the jQuery API is so simple it might stay around on the browser for a while.

[TazeTSchnitzel]

>How is javascript like assembly?

Their point is it is often used as a language to compile down to, not that JS is like ASM.

[msutherl]

This post reads a bit inflammatory to me and I take issue with most of your points.

> > everyone hates [Perl] because it’s “too hard to maintain” and too “strange.”

> I didn't know everyone hates Perl and I also didn't know those were the reason.

More accurately: nobody cares about Perl. Not 'nobody', but most people. It's hyperbole. You might argue that there is still a lot of Perl around according to programming language popularity metrics, but very few if any new things are being done with Perl, at least in this neck of the woods.

> How is javascript like assembly?

Explained in other comments. It's more like bytecode. Many other languages are compiled to JavaScript (hundreds?)

> > There’s a similar explosion of JavaScript implementations on server side and in other languages, leading to issues with compatibility and runtime bugs.

> What is this based on? I haven't seen many problems with compatibility and runtime bugs in the Node ecosystem at all.

I've used systems that use other JavaScript interpreters than V8. Also I think he may be referring to incompatibility between browsers and server. Compare to Python or Ruby where there is a standard C implementation used the vast majority of the time and then a manageable number of competing implementations that can easily be ignored for compatibility reasons.

> > Still don’t believe that JavaScript is the new Perl? Compare jQuery to Perl CGI. Nobody actually does plain “JavaScript” programming for the web anymore, not really anyway. Do they use the core language? Yes. But we no longer use any of the built-in JavaScript->HTML functionality directly.

> Only holds limited truth for browser development. Everybody using jquery is using plain Javascript.

I don't understand. In my experience of web development, we are using JQuery, which is a Javascript library that abstracts most things you do in the browser just as Perl CGI is a library that abstracts most things to do with HTTP. You appear not be refuting what he wrote, but simply claiming he is wrong. What do you mean by saying that everybody using JQuery is also using plain Javascript?

> > jQuery is the glue that holds together the JavaScript ecosystem, provides browser compatibility, and it admittedly does a pretty good job.

> what?

Yes, yes, and yes. What issue do you take with this statement?

> > however, sooner or later, the lack of language constructs like truly enforceable namespace boundaries, and the general mess created when teams get a little bit bigger is going to set in.

> Name spacing is easily solved using module loaders and proper scoping.

His complaint is that it's not enforced. Sure, it's "easy" to use module loaders and proper scoping, but anybody is free to ignore them and boy do they!

> > We ARE inherently lazy and most of us will ignore nearly any best practice or principle once “that deadline” gets too close.

> Sorry, this just means you're a shitty developer and/or can't manage deadlines very well.

No, "you're" not a shitty developer, lots of real people working in a real companies are. Successful languages make it impossible to be a shitty (read: disorganized) developer in these respects. People who work in enterprise say this over and over as do, surprisingly, people in the programming languages community. Head over to Lambda the Ultimate or just take a look at the design choices that languages like Haskell make.

> > Still, you don’t see that many big Python and Ruby shops either (Google is an exception,)

> His exception is a pretty large one. And besides that, which companies has the author studied?

It's perfectly fine to include a statement of anecdotal truth in a blog post. Want some data? Take a look at TIOBE: http://www.tiobe.com/index.php/content/paperinfo/tpci/index..... The popular static languages are more popular than the popular dynamic languages by a factor of 4:1.

[kamaal]

>>You might argue that there is still a lot of Perl around according to programming language popularity metrics, but very few if any new things are being done with Perl, at least in this neck of the woods.

Perl is used extensively and probably more than any other language in its stride even when it comes to new projects. Unless your definition of new projects are projects which spit out HTML and nothing else.

A very big world exists outside web development.

>>Want some data? Take a look at TIOBE

I don't trust data which includes treats ruby(the programming language) and ruby(stones) or Python(the programming language) and Python(the snake) as same.

>>The popular static languages are more popular than the popular dynamic languages by a factor of 4:1.

Correction, IDEs of popular static languages(Read Java and C#) are more famous than static languages themselves. Who 'really' programs in those languages these days? Today its all about auto complete magic with armies of low paid mediocre programmers. In fact IDE's are the only reason why static languages are even round.

Else who has the time to sit down and write 20 lines of code with 10's of API calls just to open and write a line to a file?

For 99% projects programmer time is vastly more expensive than CPU time.

[pretoriusB]

>I didn't know everyone hates Perl and I also didn't know those were the reason. Surely we don't want strange languages? </sarcasm>

Why the sarcasm? "Everyone", in everyday talk means "most people", and considered that Perl has long lost the spotlight it once had as a scripting language, that is a lot of people.

As for the "strange" part, yes, surely we "don't want strange languages". Strange languages have always been marginal, with C (Algol) style languages always being the most popular.

Here by strange he obviously alludes to the "syntactic noise"-likeness of the language's syntax, one of the most common complaint's about it.

>How is javascript like assembly?

In the obvious way that is used as a target language for stuff, from emscripten to coffeescript, to TypeScript, to Dart, to clojurescript, to GWT.

It's been called multiple types, including in HN, "the assembly/bytecode of the web world" in case you haven't noticed.

>Sorry, this just means you're a shitty developer and/or can't manage deadlines very well.

Which includes most of the industry, so it cannot be dismissed with an work ethic/abilities slant like that. It's common knowledge (and inspected in literature) that most IT project fail, for example. You really think it's because of "shitty developers"? Do you think Brook's team had "shitty developers"? Or the team that worked on Chandler? (read "The Mythical Man Month" and "Dreaming in Code" respectively).

[Groxx]

The existence of cross-compilers (even popular ones) does not make a language "like assembly". Javascript is still overwhelmingly written in Javascript.

[msutherl]

'People are using it like assembly' does mean that all or even a significant fraction of people are doing that. It's sufficient that a noticeable number of people are doing it and there are tens if not hundreds of projects that compile other languages to Javascript.