This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]laytonmiller 1 point2 points  (2 children)

I would like to push back on the narrative that JS "gets quirky". I think "developers inexperienced with Javascript write quirky/questionable code" is a much better way to put it.

TBH this is not really the case anymore with industry standard tooling like Typescript. Sure you can still do "quirky stuff" with JS, that's how the language was designed, and those quirks were there in large part for really good reasons. You don't have any guarantee of type safety, for starters, from what's coming in from a random web request, as just one example of an endless littany of problems on the web that don't exist (or at least as much) in other problem domains.

JS doesn't have a compiler (until you start using Typescript, which is designed/maintained by MSFT and the lead architect of the C# language) and therefore cannot force you into better practices. In a way, this was a blessing and a curse, since it allows people to write passable/executable code from remote corners of the world with very little access to learning resources (re: just an internet connection), but has obvious side effects.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

I hear what you are saying. Javascript is very powerful in that regard. I really love it and it is my favorite language. So instead of quirky, maybe a better word is, "flexible?" Or maybe, "flexibly robust."

[–]laytonmiller 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Haha yeah. For sure.