That's fine for trade schools, but worse than useless for real schools.

You've watched far too many Thunderf00t videos. You've clearly been influenced by his astonishing ignorance and disturbing bigotry. As a result, you're living in a fantasy world -- but you're too deluded to notice!

You're fighting an imaginary war against an imaginary enemy. You think the danger you see is real and immediate. You're angry and feel powerless, so you act out online. You're compelled to spread the word (er, share your delusions) with the ignorant masses least the imaginary enemy take control and destroy your way of life!

What were you saying again about mental illness?

Class-based systems are fundamentally broken. We've known this since the 1980's. Get with the time, man!

No surprise there. You'll find that there's no consensus on what "OOP" actually is or entails. It's an ill-defined and incoherent concept. It's funny, you'll find that there's a lot of disagreement even about what languages are and are not "object oriented" -- which includes languages like Java and C++. If you want to have an "x is not OOP" argument, you can have it with someone else. I'm sure someone just loves that sort of thing, but it's a silly waste of time, as far as I'm concerned.

Still, as I pointed out earlier, it's trivial to implement a class-ical system in a language like JavaScript. It would be stupid, of course, but if you want to use a fundamentally broken system like you find in languages like Java and C#, that's your business.

As for the rest, it doesn't appear that you have the necessary background to make further discussion valuable for either of us.

And horribly wrong, but you don't know that. I'll also note that your complaints are exactly what I expected "I want broken classes" and "I don't like dynamic languages". Ridiculous.

Nonsense. While I agree that it should never have been added (thanks coffeescript, for your worse-than-useless contribution) there are certainly no fundamental problems with it. God only knows what you mean by "huge interpreter hole", though "depending on how its implemented" implies that it's not a problem with the language. (I would also like to note that problems caused by "how its implemented" applies to every feature of every language ever.) I don't think you've thought this through.

It's much much more powerful and flexible than class-based inheritance. Class-based inheritance is fundamentally broken. Just one example, the diamond problem simply doesn't exist with prototypical inheritance. If you really want to force yourself to use a broken and inferior model, you can very easily implement "traditional" classes in JavaScript.

I blame the "new" keyword on this bit of absurdity. JavaScript included the new keyword, as far as I can tell, to make the language seem more familiar to people coming from C++ and Java. (A big mistake.) It was just too easy to pretend that objects in JavaScript were like objects in those languages. This lead a lot of people to think that objects in JavaScript were "broken" when in reality they're simpler, more powerful, don't suffer from the same problems as class-ical objects, ... I could go on.

This makes absolutely no sense. While it could benefit from a proper module system, code reuse is still significantly simpler in JavaScript than it is in languages like C# and Java. I don't know what you mean by "fake" and "dumb" -- and I suspect that you don't know either.

This is equally incoherent. JavaScript, at one time, lacked block-level scope; but that had absolutely nothing to do with OOP. (Neither is JavaScript an "OOP language", whatever that's supposed to mean. It's closer to Lisp than it is to Java.) I'd ask you what bizarre reasoning brought you to that conclusion, but I suspect that you're just repeating something you heard and haven't actually thought it through yourself.

Why?

Do you have any complaints about it that don't boil down to "I hate dynamic languages" or "classes are the one true way to do oop".

That's what I thought.

That you can just "jump in" and get things done is certainly a testament to the language, but you really need to take the time to learn about it before you can use it effectively. Most people don't take the time to learn it and just jump on the bizarre "JavaScript is horrible" meme. Don't be like them!

If you need an easy introduction, there are quite a few talks by Doug Crockford on youtube. Just search for "Crockford JavaScript". Don't assume that you know JS just because you've used it for years!

It really is the worlds most misunderstood language.

...

...

Your former employer is undoubtedly very grateful you left on your own.

Ah, I think you've mixed up the users. The person to which you replied was a different user that, aside from his admitted dualism, seems to be in complete agreement with you.

It's a belief held without evidence. You might as well posit fairies and elves. There's just as much evidence for their existence as there is for the parents claim.

I never made any such claim. I didn't say that he was right or wrong, only that there was no evidence to support his wild speculation. You woo woo's don't seem to care about evidence, you just believe whatever makes you feel good. It's sad, really, seeing you live in a fantasy world.

I see. You think that your evidence-free beliefs are unquestionably true and above scrutiny. Do you think Jesus told you or something? You woo woo's are lost cause!

2000 years ago, everyone else would have as well. What nonsense "point" are you failing to regurgitate?

Where did this come from? It looks like a desperate attempt to drag god in to the conversation, or you're terribly confused about what "dualism" means and entails. Perhaps both?

Oh, I should probably point out that the parent was agreeing with you. In your rush to fight the enemies of reason (which you are, ironically) you've managed to attack an ally.

Sounds like magical thinking to me.

But you know this already:

It's not a first step towards that at all. Not even a little bit.

Ugh. Why do you woo woo believers always jump to the first "conclusion" that makes you feel good? Why don't you base your beliefs on evidence instead? You'll find reality is more interesting that whatever magical nonsense you're going to promulgate next.

You're the most dangerous type of magical thinker -- you actually believe that there's science behind your wildly speculative beliefs.

There isn't anything to argue about here. He's the one who introduced God into the conversation. You can verify that by reading his irrational rants above.

Assuming you're a physicalist: If that were true, how is it that we're able to accurately report on the content of our subjective experience?

That is, if consciousness is merely epiphenomenal, and thus supervenes on the brain, the content of such experiences would necessarily be inaccessible to the brain. That you can report on the content of your subjective experience suggests that it is accessible to the brain and, consequently, that your emergent hypothesis is untenable.

(It's a simple argument, but should be enough to keep you too busy to go around making further bold pronouncements unsupported by any actual science for a while.)

Of course there is! Here's an easy example: My wife says she saw a mouse in the laundry room.

No mouse droppings, no gathered bits of fluff, no teeth marks on wires, boxes, etc, no smiling cats -- no evidence of mice or mouse-like activity could be found. It doesn't mean that there wasn't a mouse in the laundry room, only that her story could not be verified.

I know, it's probably not what you intended to say. It bugged me for some reason.

The rest of your post is spot on. I couldn't agree more.