Why is it ok that Javascript is the only client side option?

     shipping binary code to browsers

He's not talking about binary code. He's talking about bytecode with the same security restrictions Javascript has, with the only difference being that a bytecode language is optimized for being a target of compilers, otherwise you have to be Google to make a functional compiler targeting Javascript.

     Flash is bad enough

He's not talking about Java Applets or Flash either, he's talking about shipping a bytecode interpreter/compiler instead of a Javascript interpreter/compiler.

     if you want to be a good programmer then you need to learn other 
     languages

I'm increasingly frustrated by having to learn programming languages, not for productivity, not because I'm learning useful new things, but because a certain platform requires it.

     Eric Raymonds famous article actually recommends you should try and 
     learn a new language every year

I would take Eric's advice with a grain of salt: far more useful is to learn new algorithms, data structures, some design skills or do some math learning / exercises every year. Or how about sharping those marketing skills by reading some books / travelling / investing in some offshore relationships?

Learning a language that's similar to what you already know is a waist of time. And if you properly learn C++, Haskell and Lisp you're pretty much done with everything there is to know about programming languages.

     Javascript is actually a real cool language masquerading as a very dull 
     mainstream one

IMHO, programming languages cannot be separated from their mainstream implementation, as many people seem to suggest. No matter how cool Javascript is, you're going to feel the pain related to browser issues.

     If all you have is a hammer then every thing looks like a nail

Except that most programming languages are hammers of various sizes with a steeper learning curve than a library that could give you the same productivity.

Case in point for Java programmers: http://www.playframework.org/

I think this is an important question to ask. I don't think the OP is asking it for quite the right reasons, but I still think it's important.

As web developers, we're all about 'openness', 'choice' and other warm fuzzy concepts. So why is it OK that JavaScript is the only client side option?

the script element has 'language' and 'type' attributes, clearly indicating the possibility of other types of script (indeed, microsoft used to support VBScript in web pages, don't know if they still do).

To address some of your points:

1) Implementation isn't important. Sure, don't ship binaries to browsers. That's just a detail, the main point is why can't we ship anything other than JS?

3) JS is a cool language. So what? JPG is a cool format, doesn't mean there's no room for PNG too.

4) If all you have is JavaScript then everything looks like a JS problem.

>First of all - shipping binary code to browsers. Please. No. Flash is bad enough. Say good bye to all the grease monkey style hacks and remixes and lots of other interesting things about the web.

Monkey patching bytecode may very well be harder but is that really used? Greasemonkey is marginal at best. What other things do you have in mind?

>Secondly - either you are a programmer or not. I can't actually tell from your article if you want to be or not. However if you want to be a good programmer then you need to learn other languages - you might not be an expert in those other languages but being able to navigate your way round them - it is good for your programmers brain.

I've learned plenty of languages and do appreciate some of the points of Javascript. I just don't see why everyone seems to defend it as the one-true-language for the client side. For everything else people make plenty of diverse choices yet somehow on the one platform that for historical reasons is stuck with a single language saying you'd rather use another implies somehow that you don't get it.

>And thirdly - Javascript is actually a real cool language masquerading as a very dull mainstream one. I resisted doing too much in it for years but as I needed to do more and more I found out that its very powerful and flexible. Also if you use something like jquery you get a lot of Ruby style bits and pieces.

I am using jQuery and it does have some goodies. The point isn't that with effort I couldn't make myself more comfortable with it. The point is that I don't see much that Javascript gives me that Ruby doesn't. So the fact I am forced to use Javascript is a net-negative for me.

>If all you have is a hammer then every thing looks like a nail. Ruby might be a pretty good language - but there is a reason there are so many other languages and its not because all the other people are idiots who weren't smart enough to come up with Ruby.

Certainly. And I do use other languages. The reason I'd like to be able to use Ruby for both codebases is that that would allow me to do interesting stuff I can't right now.

In fact the same criticism can be made of Javascript, that because it's the only hammer available everything looks like a nail. I'm proposing more languages, not less.

"First of all - shipping binary code to browsers. Please. No. Flash is bad enough. Say good bye to all the grease monkey style hacks and remixes and lots of other interesting things about the web"

I don't see how browsers interpreting compiled bytecode would prevent greasemonkey-style hacks.

I think the problem he's highlighting is with the browser executing a specific language. If it used a bytecode system, like JVM, CLR, or similar, you could still use Javascript--just compiled down to the appropriate bytecode. But others could use Ruby, or Python, or Java, or C#, or any other language that can be compiled to the appropriate bytecode.

>You are on a path to enlightenment.

It's starting with a bit of rage though :)

> JavaScript is an elegant and truly flexible language

To me it looks like it has a beautiful prototype-OO language trapped inside it somewhere. The point is more I'd rather get the work done with the tools I like than be forced to learn it.

> very well suited to the roll we have given it in remote (and until recently) pretty simplistic client environments

I find strange that what suits the environment is a language instead of a bytecode interpreter of some sort. Lua seems to have pretty compact implementations for example.

> I suggest that your issues are not with JavaScript per se but with managing the flow of data and functionality between the server and the client. I am not suggesting that will become easy but, with experience, you will find workmanlike solutions.

I have issues with that I know but what I always feel is that I am struggling with that plus figuring out how to properly iterate an array or implement a dictionary (both things I've found to be ugly and/or non-trivial in Javascript)

I have actually, that's the book I took with me. It made me understand the language more and just highlighted how it has an interesting model behind it (e.g., prototype and async) and a pretty bad syntax in front of it (e.g., constructor stuff).

If I do or do not know Javascript is actually tangential to my point. What I find strange is that the browser environment forces a language on developers and that is seen as OK. When apple was adding language/framework restrictions to the AppStore people were screaming bloody murder but somehow the browser status quo is fine.

That being said the title was probably too agressive. The original was not very descriptive and it was what I came up with on the spot.

Unkind my friend. I think the OP is looking for encouragement and enlightenment. Perhaps you could share some thoughts on how you tackle these issues.

Because I'd probably still prefer to write Javascript than Java. But a GWT approach is one possible solution and there are some Ruby projects that do similar things. None are production ready though. For reference:

http://hotruby.yukoba.jp/ - Implements the YARV (ruby 1.9) bytecode in Javascript (most promising one in my view) http://github.com/mneumann/rubyjs - Compiles a subset of Ruby code to Javascript