Posted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 3:52 am
I haven't read any other replies yet but I think Burrito deserved a response.
Oh yes plenty of poor PHP. But poor JS is more annoying. Anyway I'm not saying this poor code is JS's fault just that, that is one of the reasons why it has a bad reputation.Burrito wrote:but you can hardly blame the language itself for people using or 'mis-using' it. It's also not fair to paint a negative picture of it based on people's implementation of it...flashy or not. I agree that there is a lot of poorly written javascript code, but I've seen some horrendous php code as well.
Microsoft introduced innerHTML which a lot of people live by as well. I have no problem with MS putting in their own features but, for gods sake implement the standards correctly and completely first!while I agree that the cross browser (standardization...or lack thereof), is frustrating, I still don't think it's fair to peg javascript as 'shoddy'. Fingers need to be pointed at browser developers and even there, I wouldn't point too hard....here's why:
while IE has their own way of doing things, a lot of those things are revolutionary to the whole internet browsing experience. As far as I know (and I could very well be wrong), IE introduced the 'display' property in CSS which is now a must use tool to have in your back pocket for DHTML...I remember the days of 'visibility'...yuck! I DO know for a fact that MS introduced the XMLHttp object so this thread wouldn't even be happening had that not happend. I don't want this to turn into a IE flamewar so I'll leave it at that and get back on topic.
Hmmm...JS is obviously a scripting language in a browser environment. If JS is sub-par then it is purely because of the browsers. ECMAScript is a fine language. JS in FF is superb like I said.I asked the question of why people were afraid to learn javascript and you responded indicating that it's a sub-par language and their fears could therefore be justified. So far I don't see any concrete examples / reasons as to why it is sub-par. The examples you've provided are the fact that it's being poorly used, but they have no bearing on the language itself.