I'm surprised to see so many comments like this...

Javascript is the language of choice for large swaths of the programming community for one good reason. its not because its fast. its not because it is easy. it's also not because people really really like the syntax. the reason is that it is the only programming language that RUNS NATIVELY IN EVERY BROWSER.

A processor that would run Javascript natively would be an incredible boon to any computer intended to display web content (most of them). That processor would be highly sought after, and would make almost everything faster.

Languages like C, Java, Scala... (whatever insert close-to-the-metal language here) are objectively faster, better at memory management, more neckbeardy to know... whatever. They are fantastic for what they get used for. THEY DON'T NATIVELY WORK ON THE WEB.

If another language can successfully take over for the anointed position that Javascript fell into, then we can toss out Javascript. Until then, you should give Javascript some respect.

In this case co-workers are end users. They are the consumers of the services that IT provides.

Tell me, do you trust the specifications on the things you buy/obtain? A power supply will output its specified voltage (given a specific power range). Software will do what it advertises (except there are always bugs), spouses promise to stay together forever (but people divorce). Newtons laws can be applied correctly to simple things like when a ball will hit the ground, or complicated things like getting a rocket into space. When they are used to these macro level tasks they perform very very well, and will yield results incredibly close to reality. When applying Newtons mathematical constructs to predicting the responses of incredibly small, incredibly large, or incredibly fast things they will break down. This is not because they are wrong. It is because they were never intended to explain everything. They were intended to provide the ability to predict actions in the macro scale, for actions that people could observe in the 1600s. You are not wrong that these 'laws' do not apply broadly to everything, but you are very wrong in thinking that they should.