Is this true?
In some weird organic process, the pantheon of programming languages have ordered themselves in terms of prestige. It’s as random but undeniable as music and fashion. Radiohead is on one end, and Nickelback is on the other. No one knows precisely how they got there, but there they are.
On the Radiohead end, you’ve got Common Lisp, Scheme, Smalltalk, and a few others. Scheme is even more Lisp than Lisp, so it’s like that weird avant garde band no one’s heard of that Radiohead always claims inspired their latest album. If Lisp is Radiohead, Scheme is Kraftwerk.
For all of the people who found themselves using JavaScript but feeling that hot flush of shame, Crockford gave them an answer. JS wasn’t some sell-out radio rock band. It was edgy, obscure. It was Scheme.
Not just that, but it was secretly Scheme. So if you were into JS, not only were you using one of the coolest languages, you were one of the select enlightened few who knew how cool it was. You may be listening to Coldplay, but only because Brian Eno produced it.
This “JS = Scheme” meme was hugely legimitizing to a horde of programmers feeling unsure of themselves in the face of grizzly C programmers who allocated their own damn memory, probably right after building their own computer out of rocks and twigs.
>mfw C is the nickleback of programming languages
>>58320235
>me on the left
>>58320235
Seeing how the JS/ECMAScript = Scheme meme is touted by based Brendan Eich himself, I would clearly say this is false.
>>58320275
So he tried to make his abortion of a programming language look better by comparing it to Scheme? Sounds about right.
>>58320304
His first design was actually a Scheme-like, but Mozilla would have none of it. Then he slapped on a C syntax and it was suddenly okay.
JavaScript is still a mess of dialects and versions and whatnot
>>58320328
That's why there are even more languages with more even versions that compile to some (not all) dialects and some (not all) versions of JavaScript.
>>58320352
I've seen build pipelines with two transpilers in them. Scary stuff.
>>58320235
>the process by which radiohead has been considered better tthan nickleback is entirely random
>>58322080
I think OP meant "arbitrary", it's obviously not random.
radiohead is equally shit as nickelback to be honest