On Wednesday 04 October 2006 11:47, Richard_Dale@tipitina.demon.co.uk wrote:
> On Wednesday 04 October 2006 09:21, Allan Sandfeld Jensen wrote:
> > On Tuesday 03 October 2006 18:42, Isaac Clerencia wrote:
> > > On Sunday, 1 October 2006 15:11, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > > > I remember these reasons from last year:
> > > >
> > > > 2) There are a lot of developers out there that know JavaScript
> > > > (think of the web)
> > >
> > > I work with other twelve developers, we all use GNU/Linux, some of us
> > > KDE, others Gnome, some of us prefer C++, others Ruby, Python or even
> > > Perl, but we all agree in one thing, we hate Javascript.
> > >
> > > Of course, this may be anecdotal, but I have yet to meet some developer
> > > that enjoys writing Javascript. I'm sure they may exist, but not in
> > > (my) FLOSS world.
> >
> > I know them. Javascript is actually a very elegant object oriented
> > language. And with its prototype based objects it is somewhat unique, and
> > a very expressive.
> >
> > The reason for javascript's bad reputation is probably more to do with
> > incredible weak typing, but you could have the same problem with perl.
>
> I like JavaScript - maybe because I haven't done all that much programming
> with it. If you use the 'prototype.js' library that comes with rails, it's
> like using a new language, and it makes JavaScript quite ruby-like. I
> suggested to Rich Moore at aKademy that including it in kjsembed would be a
> really good idea (it's quite small). Rich is adding functionality to
> kjsembed to be able to include JavaScript from standard locations which
> would allow it to use standard libs, and we can fix any deficiencies in
> JavaScript.

You mean patching Javascript with proprietary extensions?

I don't think that would make the situation better.


Cheers,

		Frans