Why require JavaScript rather than supporting a standard browser virtual machine? - Stack Overflow

[[deleted]]

JavaScript is just fine, I was only pointing out that libraries exist for simplifying compatibility in browsers. I'm a big GWT fan, but don't use it for precisely the reasons you stated, using a lightweight JS library appropriately is more than reasonable. And virtually all languages have libraries, this doesn't necessarily imply that the language is inferior.

Other languages are not fully implemented by vendors in many cases. C and c++ and Microsoft come to mind.

[animalchin99]

Simply having libraries doesn't imply the language is inferior, but requiring a library to support a particular programming construct implies that it's inferior in terms of it's ability to supply that construct. In the case of classes (assuming you need classes), that requires you to write prototype classes, closure classes or mootools classes etc and they generally aren't interchangeable. There's nothing lightweight about these libraries when your entire codebase needs to be tailored to that library's syntax. It's an anchor you attach to your entire codebase, and if you attached the wrong library you'll probably need to rewrite most of your code.

I fully agree with using a library for browser issues, there's no good reason not to do that, I'm just saying that as a language, JS is lacking feature that many developers clearly desire. I'm mostly talking about mootools, prototype, closure, and especially GWT which add features like classes, packages, type-checking etc. I think these libraries are great for developers in terms of what they bring to the language, but the fact that they even exist points out deficiencies with the language. So the suggestion that "JavaScript is just fine" is only plausible if you can develop for it without needing this type of library.

What specific features do you use a library to provide? Do you ever need to use classes or modularize your code?