> Maybe it's not FUD, maybe it's legitimate criticism.
"If I could take a clean sheet of paper and write [a new language] that retains all the goodness of [JavaScript] ... I would not have come up with anything like Dart." -- Douglas Crockford
How is this legitimate criticism? Especially since Dart has all the goodness of JavaScript except monkey patching (or is that one of the good parts?)
What frustrated me about Douglas Crockford's response is that he didn't come out and say what he'd like a JavaScript replacement to look like. That would have been interesting.
He's been very clear about what he wants as a replacement for javascript for many years, hiding it in plain sight in a little book called "Javascript the good parts" and codifying it in JSLINT. It just looks too much like Javascript to be recognised as a replacement.
That was my thought too. He said recently in a video interview the he wished JavaScript had tail call optimization, so it would probably be something along functional programming lines.
I think it was this one, but they don't publish a transcript so I can't easily verify:
"If I could take a clean sheet of paper and write [a new language] that retains all the goodness of [JavaScript] ... I would not have come up with anything like Dart." -- Douglas Crockford
How is this legitimate criticism? Especially since Dart has all the goodness of JavaScript except monkey patching (or is that one of the good parts?)