I don't see how JS is anything like C. C is a compiled systems programming language with strict typing. If anything is "the next C" I would say something like Google Go is the closest I have seen. I think the author is trying to compare languages based on some observations about popularity and significance to developers which just seems so wrong and misguided.
I could see JS being on par with other dynamic scripting languages (python/perl/ruby/php) if node/commonJS really take off. Despite its excellent functional programming features I still find JS difficult to program in and difficult to read mainly due to prototypical inheritance and bizarre scoping rules. *In my opinion* constructing larger programs is so much easier and more natural in python/ruby. Perhaps the best use of JS is simply as a lightweight embedded scripting language as we've seen in browsers. I know JS and its variants are also used in scripting flash, PDF's and even some of the Desktop in KDE. On Feb 4, 11:40 am, "Dmitry A. Soshnikov" <[email protected]> wrote: > Languages constantly evolve; new languages appear based on previous > levels of abstraction. As engineers we /control complexity/ - that's the > main purpose of programming. Solving a task we should have the ability > (techniques) to solve it in the /easy manner/. Until our current > languages are strong enough to beat the current level of complexity. > When we face with more complex language, we invent a new language. And > we should do this constantly. I.e. constantly envent new languages > depending on new needs and new complex task -- to solve these "issues" > easily. > > So JavaScript may easily become the "next C". Or, it will just evolve to > new abstraction level (i.e. bringing new ideological abstractions and > very convenient syntax). And actually that exactly it does -- evolves. > TC-39 committee does a huge and great job by discussing new features. > ES6 aka Harmony will have some new convenient and useful stuff. > > Unfortunately, because of backward compatibility, JS cannot evolve too > radically. It cannot just change the skin to e.g. CoffeeScript. The only > way of the radical changes in already existing language -- is to event > the new language. And that exactly what CoffeeScript is (author, Jeremy > Ashkenas did a great job). > > Recently I brought a very valuable (in my opinion) quote from SICP on > the topic: "Why do we need new languages?"https://gist.github.com/809253 > > Dmitry. > > On 04.02.2011 18:37, Acaz Souza Pereira wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > JavaScript is the next C > > <http://jyro.blogspot.com/2011/02/javascript-is-next-c.html> > > > *http://jyro.blogspot.com/2011/02/javascript-is-next-c.html* > > > For discuss > > > -- > >www.twitter.com/acazsouza<http://www.twitter.com/acazsouza> > > >www.acazsouza.com<http://www.acazsouza.com/> > > > -- > > To view archived discussions from the original JSMentors Mailman list: > > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ > > > To search via a non-Google archive, visit here: > >http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > [email protected] -- To view archived discussions from the original JSMentors Mailman list: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ To search via a non-Google archive, visit here: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]
