Subj : Re: ECMAScript standards committee
To   : =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Georg_Maa=DF?=
From : Brendan Eich
Date : Sat Oct 16 2004 11:27 am

Georg Maaß wrote:
> Brendan Eich wrote:
> 
>> Newbies may use stuff unintentionally.  
> 
> 
> Yes, but this is eactly how learning works.


No, that's not how learning works best.  Did you go to shop class in 
school?  Did you have a teacher, safety equipment and rules?  Were you 
able to use the table saw right away, unsupervised?


>> Newbies who fancy themselves expert tend to use sharp tools they ought 
>> not, and lose fingers and toes.  C++'s practical history is full of 
>> such tragedies.
> 
> 
> So let's break all knifes and futurely pull the meat into pieces...
> Break out all teeth because there are people biting themself into their 
> tongue...


That's called _reductio ad absurdum_, and it's a fallacy.  I never said 
there should be on power tools in programming languages.  I wrote that 
C++ takes off all the safeties (as C does) but adds more power, more 
expressiveness and ease of hiding inefficiency, error, and bloat.

If JS is meant for the same audience of programmers as C++, then it 
should yield to Java or C# (the latter may be slightly better than the 
former, but not enough to matter).  And in fact, Java is now taught 
extensively in schools, where 20 years ago some form of Pascal, or C for 
the more adventurous, was taught.

What has this to do with JS?  JS is not C++, Java, or C#, and it should 
not try to become C++, Java, or C#.  C++ has too many hazards, even for 
so-called expert programmers (who often self-annoint after mastering the 
tempting, easy 80% of C++).  Java and C# fix many of the C++ hazards, 
but we don't need another language like Java or C#.

JS is used extensively by beginners.  It must be easy to use well for 
that audience, no matter how it evolves.  Just adding power features 
without considering how they will be abused by beginners is foolish.

/be

.