What actually makes JS/node/any framework on JS so bad? It gets

no type system

File: eggplant.png (212KB, 512x512px) Image search: [Google]

212KB, 512x512px

Eggplants

>>52342774
JS is probably one of the most durable languages created. Trolls and scriptkiddies gave it the stereotype that its bad. Flash was way ahead of its time and can still be the prime source for media that's encoded.

>>52342774
flood of frameworks that do the same thing and are over complicated for no reason

>>52342822
>what is FORTRAN
>what is COBOL

>>52342790
That doesn't specifically make JS bad (although it helps), but it is a feature multiple languages support.

>>52342774
I can't talk about all js frameworks in general.
But js has some fundamental flaws. The two biggest are probably its inconcistency throughout the whole language (stuff like []+{} and {}+[]) which make it a pain to learn and use, and a type system that is so weak it will gladly parse a string to a number if it finds the opportunity and sell it as an implicit cast and can't even guarantee how many parameters will be passed to a function.
Node tries to give you asycronycy without the trouble that is locking and synchronisation. The way it does that is with callbacks. Unfortunately it does not provide the necessary abstraction facilities to compose these callbacks. So bad programmers will inevitably end up in the infamous callback hell. Obviously good programmers are able to write their own abstraction layer to work with but tons of code is still an unreadable mess.

File: 1442200772223.gif (496KB, 500x455px) Image search: [Google]

496KB, 500x455px

>>52342774
>he actually thinks g's opinion matters

>>52342774
That code snippet in the OP picture isn't really evil though. Nothing can really be injected in there.

Stupid and lazy? Yes. Evil? No.

>>52344936
>for(p=...)
>not for(var p=...)

spooky skeletal stuff goin on in here