As I pointed out, Your "points" 1 and 4 show that, in fact, you don't understand the language. (This statement isn't even coherent: "This is a relic of the fact that Javascript wants to be both OO and Prototype based". What other conclusion could I draw?)

Points 2 and 3 clearly shows that you don't understand the scoping rules. Once you actually learn the language it becomes clear that there are no issues to "work around". The rules are simple and clear. There are no inconsistencies. Though it looks like you want to introduce some...

If you understood the very simple rules, you'd know exactly why that happens. You'd also understand why it would be "kludgy" (inconsistent) to make it work like you suggest!

Here's something fun: PHP perfectly fits your criteria for a "good, well designed language" as it "doesn't require you to take extra steps to 'learn the language' beyond the concepts necessary to use it at a base level". Why, it's even a better fit than your exemplars: Java and C#.

That's embarrassing!

Here, I'll give you a chance to redeem yourself: Following your newly revealed definition for "good, well designed language" how does JavaScript fail to meet your criteria that would not also disqualify languages that you consider well-designed like Java and C#?

Good luck.

This is an absolutely brilliant post. Clear and concise.

No, I said to stop treating it like a class-based OO langauge. JavaScript's objects are prototype-based. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's bad. Try learning the language before you complain about it.

Try learning the scoping rules. It makes perfect sense.

3 try learning the language.

4 is advice given to you by someone else who doesn't understand JavaScript, and also shows clearly that you don't understand 1.

5 Possibly your only legitimate complaint. Just use semicolons all the time, problem solved. Why you don't find similar complains about optional brackets in JS, C, etc.? All the same complaints apply.

7 is unsubstantiated nonsense.

8 Perhaps you don't know what NaN means? (Hint: NaN is a value, not a type) You'll find that in Java, Python, etc. NaN==NaN returns false as well.

Please don't.

You might want to learn the language before you make such a pronouncement.

Do you have any actual reasons or are you just parroting what you think "smart people" are supposed to believe?

JavaScript is kludgy?

Stop using jQuery and stop trying to force JavaScript to act like a class-based oo language. That should fix most of your JavaScript complaints.

Considering IE 10's score, I seriously doubt that the fact that it's a "preview build" matters. It's not likely to improve much, if at all.

Hell, give it another 10 points and it's still behind a number of televisions.

Get over it.

Wow, that's ... pitiful.

That's a completely different kind of product, you know.

Apple TV is more in line with the Visio CoStar than it is to the Ouya. Sure, you get a bit more bang for your buck with the CoStar, but their intended to be used for similar purposes.

That Apple sells a random product for less than $100 is completely irrelevant to the parents comment.

To be clear, he said "Tabarrok seems to tacitly assume that innovation can be regulated via legislation". Which, to answer your question, he supported by quoting the article: "So, we’ve constructed the patent system: people have a 17 year exclusive right to such public goods. That is, we’ve made them excludable by law".

I honestly don't see how you could possibly still be confused, having read both the article and the parent's posts.

That would be everyone.

Love the misogyny -- it's very modern. Phil Mason and Richard Dawkins would be proud of your contributions.

Some criticism, to improve your future pro-rape posts:

1) You did a great job calling the victim a "cunt", but instead of "I hope she gets sued" you should have written "I hope she gets raped" or better yet "if I saw her I'd rape her". Bonus points if you address your comments directly at the victim.

2) The victim did contact the police, a fact which has been pointed out numerous times in this discussion. When you distort the truth, make sure that no one can contradict your assertions!

Wow, that's ... really, really, wrong.

Perhaps if you had taken a course in logic, instead of reading a few "rationalist" blog sites, you'd understand why.

That's just something autodidacts tell themselves to make themselves feel important.

Sure about that? See any of the recent "is college useless" slashdot discussions.

That's the biggest problem with autodidacts. They tend to ignore important material that they don't have an interest in, don't immediately understand, or disagree with (because it doesn't appeal to their intuition or runs contrary to their existing beliefs.)

They end up believing themselves experts in a topic, when in reality they're less informed than a hipster Starbucks barista that took an undergrad course in the same subject.

Now, computer programming is a special case. Any kid can teach themselves computer programming -- hell, in the 80's, a lot of kids did! -- and even make a career out of it with very little effort. Just like a backyard mechanic can find work in a repair shop. The difference, of course, is that the mechanics don't fancy themselves engineers.

Programming is the easiest thing I've ever done. That a fact that many (most?) developers know but don't want to state publicly. They've got too much of their self-worth wrapped up in it. They want to continue to pretend that they're special in some way (more rational, intelligent, whatever) because they can write computer programs.

That insecurity is a problem only the autodidacts face. The educated take pride in what they've actually accomplished, not in the knowledge they have or the skills they've acquired. They know that anyone can learn (or learn to do) what they have learned, so they don't believe their knowledge and skills alone make them special or important.

Quote Eric S. Raymond all you want, but you won't find too much respect for autodidact "physicists" in the physics community or any in his silly little list of "academic areas". (I find it laughable that you refer to him as a "social anthropologist". He's not. Not even close. He's just another under-educated autodidact pandering to other under-educated autodidacts. It's sad, really.)

Yeah, because ASM is the only alternative. Eyeroll.

"Grandpa" is right. We've traded an awful lot of bloat for ... what, exactly? Vague promises of improved developer productivity? The outright lie of simplicity?

He may not be willing to blame the languages outright, but I'd back him up if he did.