The github link makes valid points. However, it overlooks the obvious…

I found a comment on YouTube that addresses the first few points:

Kyle Simpson says that most WTFs arise from lack of understanding of the language spec, of how things should work, of the reasoning behind the spec. There is probably some method to the madness but he says he can’t see it. And, still, he encourages people to use JavaScript.

WTF?!! Excuse me, but why should I want to use a language whose spec is so obtuse that I can’t easily understand the reasoning behind it, or how things are supposed to work? What kind of language requires so much special scrutiny, so much extra effort to understand?

He says JavaScript has greatness to it. I’m not so sure about that, but even if I accept it, there are other languages that can do what JavaScript does without all the ugly baggage. The ONLY reason to use JavaScript is because, for programming the web browser, you have no choice. You must use JavaScript, or at least a language that transpiles to JavaScript.

Removing choice is hardly a ringing endorsement for the JavaScript language.

I couldn’t have said it better.

The point being, JavaScript imposes a huge cognitive load on the programmer. The programmer has to dig deep to understand the nuts and bolts of the language so that they don’t run into trouble.

There are languages, like Smalltalk, that are essentially free from cognitive load, free from such glaring design defects, free from such traps and pitfalls.

And, btw, the github article asked for an example of a syntactical error that leads to silent failure at runtime. Here’s one:

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store