Reitter: Answering the question: "How do I develop an app for GNOME?"

And there's the problem. Not the lisp-y part. I dig that. But the "surprisingly good considering the speed with which it was created" and the "delightfully eclectic" bits. Those aren't good things. Or at least they aren't in this context.

Yes, if Javascript were something that were a quick prototype it would be impressive. It's not. It may have started as a fast way to get some client-side scriptability for use in the Web, but once it steps outside of that arena and starts competing against languages that benefited from a longer development time its rushed nature becomes evident.

And "delightfully eclectic"? I like obscure and quirky tech as much as the next geek -- it's the sort of thing that I'll happily spend a weekend learning because it's fun -- but when it comes to actually getting things done I don't want a language which can be praised by saying it's "delightfully eclectic". I want "unsurprisingly uniform" or "mundanely conventional."

> I think a lot of people who pan JavaScript are really criticizing the HTML DOM (or the web browser application development environment (which is a lot better than it used to be)) without realizing it.

Well, yes, those parts suck too. But the former can be abstracted into the realm of "doesn't suck", and the latter -- while still nowhere near having a proper development environment -- is as you say a lot better than it used to be.