Try learning it before you use it next time.

Given that the few *actual* complaints about it (not empty 'it sucks' rhetoric) seem to be simple misunderstandings about the language (this, classes, etc.) I'm willing to bet that the problem is the user, not the language.

Really, it's not complicated. It's really very simple. It's different, yes, but far simpler than other, less sophisticated, languages. Take a few days to learn and understand the language. You'll be impressed. It's remarkably well-designed.

He wanted to do exactly that. Then someone at Netscape found out what Scheme was and put the kibosh on that plan. (Learn a little history, kid.)

In a way, we were really lucky. What we got was MUCH better. It's a rotten shame so few people here have actually taken the time to learn the language. It's really quite good. The "bad parts", interestingly enough, are the bits Eich was told to include to make it look more like Java (new, constructor functions, etc.)

There's a good chance that, without JavaScript, the web would have vanished. You probably don't remember all the hype surrounding the "x internet" back in the early 2000's, but the web was on it's way out. If not for JavaScript (and XHR) the web would likely have been replaced by some other set of technologies.

Why?

So what you're saying is that you don't even understand the basics of the language. That's your fault.

Well, this is Slashdot so ...

You're deeply confused.

That's how things work here on Slashdot. Facts be damned, it's all about gut feelings.

"Just wait until the world as we know it ends! Then they'll HAVE to like me! And, my boss, he'll need to listen to ME for a change!"

They just read the comments to see what the title and summary might be about.

That's easy: No.

Kurzweil is the modern equivalent of a televangelist.

In short: You pulled it out of your ass.

I can accept that.

You could just admit that you couldn't prove your assertion.

Go ahead, I'll wait.

I'm sure you have actual data to back-up your claim. Surely, you didn't just make that assertion hoping I'd blindly believe it, particularly with Python's rather notorious track-record with respect to compatibility between minor versions in the 2.x branch.

No, you're not that bold! You MUST have some data.

Right?

Prove it.

Python: A fractal of bad design

#347: There's an option, off by default, to divide correctly.

Perhaps not, but they're probably not very good at ethical reasoning.

Let me guess: You're an autodidact?