It probably has a better chance than my book: Whitespace by example
without them, we cannot distinguish a panda bear who eats shoots and leaves from a mob hit-man who eats, shoots and leaves.
No Oxford comma? Mod parent down!
Which is why the AC distinguished them from one another.
To be honest, I'm not sure which one I'd trust more with that power...
You're trying to impose precision where none exists. I can certainly understand the impulse, but you'll save yourself a whole lot of trouble if you just accept the simple fact that language is naturally messy and imprecise.
If you can't, then at least just let this one go. It's really not worth the effort. What could you possibly hope to achieve?
Assuming you are religious, and you do sound so - you are automatically anti-all other religions in the world.
LOL, no. That's, quite possibly, the stupidest thing I'll read on Slashdot this week. Where did you come up with that nonsense?
We know better than to get excited about silly nonsense like this.
That's a bit more reasonable. Though I wonder why you limit its utility like that? Is there something intrinsic to the language that makes you think it's less suitable than, for example, Python in situations where that language is well-suited? For clarity: JS can't replace PHP where it works well for reasons independent of the languages themselves (that's in the differences between node.js and mod_php), yet JS obviously can't compete with C where C shines, for obvious reasons directly related to the languages.
It's the ONLY choice for client-side web. As I said twice before, that's the one place nothing is worse or better - because you have no other choice.
You seem to forget that, for many years, it was not the only choice. JS handily beat the competition. You may be too young to remember those early days, so I won't hold it against you.
Again, you forget your history. Java in the browser was effectively dead long before iOS and Android hit the scene. It lost out for a reason, after all. Java had its chance, there was more than a little excitement surrounding it, and it still failed miserably.
I'm not advocating anything, just calling out your opinion as unsupported and uninformed. (You've never explained your reasoning. I assume that's because there is none and your just repeating a meme.) Still, you'll find that JS on the server is getting quite popular. Even sites like PayPal have adopted it. Call me crazy, but I'm pretty sure they're well-aware of the alternatives and selected JS anyway.
If a key component of the language behaves in unintuitive, surprising, and troublesome ways, that's a valid criticism.
In the case of this, it's only surprising if you know absolutely nothing about the language. If it behaved the same was that it does in a language like Java, it wouldn't make any sense at all. Once you understand the basics of the language, it behaves exactly as you would expect. As I said before, that criticism stems from pure, unadulterated, ignorance. For whatever reason, people seem to think that they don't need to learn the language before using it -- even though it's dramatically different from other languages.
Another fun pun, is that the word for "grandmother" is the same as the word for "boobs".
... I'd love to know how that happened
Where other options exist, the others are probably better suited to the task.
Taking it further, the prototypal approach to OO that JS uses is, without question, superior to the classical approach. As there are vanishingly few examples of other languages that use prototypes instead of classes, just about any language you can offer as a substitute would be, necessarily, inferior. (A simple example for you, repeating a popular meme: Today, the 'best practice' is to favor composition over inheritance. JS naturally lends itself to composition; unlike Java, C#, and similar languages. Alternately: If you're a fan of the GoF book, for some reason, you'll immediately notice that many of the patterns described there are unnecessary in JS.)
To cement the point, the feature of the language most criticized (its type system) is uniquely well-suited to its intended purpose, making it exceptionally well-fit for the web. (Other popular criticisms stem from pure, unadulterated, ignorance: The behavior of this, for example.)
See, what you've done is adopt a popular (on slashdot anyway) opinion of a language that you don't understand. That makes you feel good when you're praised for making vague criticisms (like the one above) and validated when you read (equally uninformed) posts from others.
Java and Python would be examples of popular languages that would clearly be worse than JS on the web, each for different reasons.
Careful. On this site, that's flamebait. So is this:
The reason we use programming languages is to make it easier to write programs. A good programming language, then, can be judged on how much easier it is to use than other languages. What does that tell us about BASIC?
This opinion sounds uninformed.
To add to your point: You can also justify using the terms "clean" and "easy" to describe Forth.
How do we know that there are only 2 lameware apps? (Ignoring the fact that the article mentions 3 apps.)
That's "2" that a part-time columnist on a deadline found without much effort. I suspect that the actual number is significantly higher...