grrr wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 13:19:24 -0700, Trans wrote:
> 
> 
>>Anyone here use SpiderMonkey / OSSP js?  I wondering how that works out as
>>a standard (not strictly web oriented) programming language and how it
>>compares to using Ruby in that regard.
> 
> 
> Whats there to wonder? Its javascript (=ECMAscript), standalone (instead
> of browser based interpreter). 
> 
> Its a simple c-syntax like scripting language with pseudo OO like
> features thats IMHO painful, limited and clunky to use and I dont see why
> would anyone want to use it for programming anything but web client apps
> when alternatives like Ruby exist. Hell programming in java would be more
> fun and productive!

If you think of JavaScript as an OO language (or a class-oriented OO 
language) you may find it awkward and disappointing.  It is more like 
Lisp or Scheme or Self. Or Ruby.

http://www.crockford.com/javascript/little.html
http://w3future.com/html/stories/hop.xml
http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/library/wa-javascript.html

JavaScript has gotten a bad rap, largely because almost all the examples 
are crap and try to use the language as a script version of C or Java. 
(Quick way to judge a JavaScript book: look in the index and see how 
many pages are devoted to prototype.  (And if you think I'm referring to 
a particular AJAX library, then you've been reading the wrong material.))

I prefer Ruby to JavaScript, but programming in JavaScript is still fun, 
certainly much more fun than coding in Java.

As an alternative language that offers interesting ideas, consider using Io.

http://www.iolanguage.com


-- 
James Britt

"Programs must be written for people to read, and only incidentally
  for machines to execute."
   - H. Abelson and G. Sussman
   (in "The Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs)