Funny, but that's not at all what that blog entry says. Most commercial products I've ever worked on would "suck" by the criticisms Brendan makes of JS: shipped before all the bugs were ironed out, before users had a period to have meaningful feedback, and rarely revised (only "improved" with new features in the case of most apps).
On the other hand, some damn fine products have been built using JavaScript. Probably upwards of billions of dollars of revenue for software companies have been generated via applications either written in JavaScript (think ASP, BroadVision, Flash/ActionScript, etc) or extended via JavaScript. Before you scoff, remember, that revenue is what pays my salary and allows me to feed my family. I've never earned a dime writing Python. So in my book, JavaScript doesn't "suck". On 25 Apr, 2006, at 5:55 pm, Karl Guertin wrote: > > On 4/25/06, Jeff Watkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Finally, any library with the tag-line "MochiKit makes JavaScript >> suck less" obviously doesn't exhibit much respect for the language >> (JS). > > But javascript does suck. Even Brendan Eich says so [1]. > > [1] http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roadmap/archives/2006/02/ > js_and_python_news.html > > I use dojo for my heavy lifting in javascript (the io, event, and now > behavior parts) but I do find MochiKit to be the most elegant of the > javascript libraries even though dojo is more powerful. > > > -- Jeff Watkins http://newburyportion.com/ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TurboGears" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/turbogears -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
