We put people on the moon without benefit of "scalable" languages, we built entire operating systems in C which is notorious for quickly becoming unreadable, and we've somehow built an entire world of content using HTML and CSS.
JavaScript is just a language, and while improvements to it are being made constantly, the biggest obstacle is not the language, nor the way browser makers support it, but the absurdly slow pace of some organizations to update their browsers to something sane.
Pick a language, any language, and then restrict yourself to features only ten years old. That's what JavaScript is like in some cases, but the good news is ten years ago some pretty good things were happening.
> We put people on the moon without benefit of "scalable" languages
The computer for the Apollo missions had approximately 64Kbyte of memory and operated at 0.043MHz. My wrist-watch is many orders of magnitude more powerful than that. But the programming effort that went into it was huge (literally: https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/800/1*qJnPOGdtk1q7dq17tx... ). If we were stilling coding things that way, we might be able to go to the moon but we wouldn't have self-driving cars.
> Pick a language, any language, and then restrict yourself to features only ten years old.
C# 2.0 in 2006 added:
Generics
Partial types
Anonymous methods
Iterators
Nullable types
Getter/setter separate accessibility
Method group conversions (delegates)
Co- and Contra-variance for delegates
Static classes
Delegate inference
Not to mention C# 1.0 already being statically and strongly typed, had properties and events, reference and value types, interfaces, namespaces, and a reasonably complete standard library. And that's just one language.
JavaScript is so far away from this it's not even funny. It doesn't even have proper numeric types. It's casting rules compare favorably with PHP!
So I don't buy the argument that JavaScript isn't suitable for large projects because browser makers aren't keeping up with the latest standards. JavaScript is a scripting language that's been pushed into tasks it's not suitable for because it is everywhere.
> If we were stilling coding things that way, we might be able to go to the moon but we wouldn't have self-driving cars.
I think that not only we would have self-driving cars, they'd be working much more reliably than proposed solutions of today, and would utilize some pretty clever analog-driven methods.
The problem isn't with JavaScript, the problem is with the culture which glorifies mindlesss throwing of shit at a wall to see what sticks, instead of actually thinking of what one's doing and checking if a given topic wasn't already explored by smart people a few decades ago.
> I think that not only we would have self-driving cars, they'd be working much more reliably than proposed solutions of today, and would utilize some pretty clever analog-driven methods.
Consider this - the 50-80s era was known not only for putting men on the Moon, military and space agencies were doing a lot of crazy shit like space shuttle that could start and land autonomously (Buran), or capturing small items dropped from orbit mid-flight over the ocean (Corona program, see [0]), precisely targeting cruise missiles [1], etc. - all without the benefits of microcomputers we know today, without high-level languages, cheap computing devices, etc.
It seems that back then people were more focused on making things actually work instead of making them look sexy and easy to sell.
It required unbelievable amount of man power and money to do those things. The real benefit to all our modern technology is to do more with less. It's not that people were more focused; it's just that there were many more of them and there was way more money involved.
For a very restricted definition of "self-driving" ... but fair enough, in the context of the parent post, the self-driving cars we do have are impressive pieces of software
JavaScript, unlike C#, is intended to be easily implementable. The team that built Mono had a mountain of work to do before that was a useful product.
Meanwhile a college-level student can probably write a JavaScript interpreter that passes all the specification tests in six months. It won't be fast, but it will work.
Yes, there are better languages, but stop freaking out. If you're such a fan of C# then work on getting C# to transpile down to JavaScript, asm.js, or WebAssembly and ignore the ugly parts of the JavaScript language entirely.
JavaScript is both amazing and ridiculous all at once. Deal with it.
JavaScript is just a language, and while improvements to it are being made constantly, the biggest obstacle is not the language, nor the way browser makers support it, but the absurdly slow pace of some organizations to update their browsers to something sane.
Pick a language, any language, and then restrict yourself to features only ten years old. That's what JavaScript is like in some cases, but the good news is ten years ago some pretty good things were happening.