Whether JavaScript’s far-too-numerous-to-count warts and problems are “outweighed” by its strengths and versatility is purely a matter of opinion. In my opinion (and the opinion of many others), they are not. And so the debate rages on.

I am not ignorant about any of this. I’ve done my research. I recognize how dangerous this language is, and I’m fighting vigorously to educate the public about it. Just because JavaScript is currently fashionable doesn’t mean there isn’t anything wrong with it. OOP critics will also tell you that OOP is retarded, even though it’s been fashionable to use it over the past 30 years. Dynamic typing critics will tell you dynamic languages are retarded, even though languages like PHP, Python, Ruby, Perl, Lisp, and Smalltalk have been embraced for decades.

In our industry, it is all too easy for developers to fall into the marketing trap of technologies. The unholy mess of JS web frameworks such as Angular, React, Ember, Backbone, Knockout, Meteor, Polymer, Mithril, Aurelia, Mercury, Vue, etc., etc., etc., is a prime example of this phenomenon. Legions of otherwise sane people have been sucked in. JavaScript programmers have drunk the “Kool-Aid,” and hopefully I’m the antidote.

If the term “retarded” is objectionable, perhaps I can use “brain-dead” or “abominable” or “monstrous” or “God-awful” or “abhorrent” or “wretched” or “repugnant” or “odious” or “vile.” Does it really matter which of these words I use?

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