I disagree with the premise of the article. Javascript is what it is. I think at least most JS developers recognize that.
We use javascript because it does what no other programming language can do which is make the browser come alive. And we're done our best to minimize the displeasure of using javascript. I am not thrilled with the language, but I'm enthralled by what javascript can do.
To paraphrase Douglas Crockford unless you are going to revive Java applets you don't really have a choice if you want a dynamic web app.
The move to Node.js is a double edged sword. I like using Ruby on Rails and adding enough javascript to make the app more pleasant to use without constantly requiring a page reload. But the advantage of writing code on the server and the client in the same language is hard to pass up on. Trying to decide what to put which logic on the server versus on the client is a perpetual stress point.
We use javascript because it does what no other programming language can do which is make the browser come alive. And we're done our best to minimize the displeasure of using javascript. I am not thrilled with the language, but I'm enthralled by what javascript can do.
To paraphrase Douglas Crockford unless you are going to revive Java applets you don't really have a choice if you want a dynamic web app.
The move to Node.js is a double edged sword. I like using Ruby on Rails and adding enough javascript to make the app more pleasant to use without constantly requiring a page reload. But the advantage of writing code on the server and the client in the same language is hard to pass up on. Trying to decide what to put which logic on the server versus on the client is a perpetual stress point.