Same here, to a greater extent. Why? At the highest level, because it's a language that was chosen based on a whim (not merit) and is now being extensively worked on and showed down everyone's throats. I like languages, plural. I like new languages. I like to have a choice. (And no, I cannot "simply chose something else" if I have to work with people who say every other choice is invalid by default. And yes, this is the mentality I commonly see.) In a way, JavaScript is the new Java.

The core language (syntax, available directives) hasn't changed much since the time everyone deservedly hated it. Its performance was optimized, it got many more libraries and it is still the only language supported by browsers. But the question is, why all of this applies to JavaScript and not Python/Ruby/whatever?

A lot of its benefits people claim simply weren't around when they chose to stick with it. It's like saying you chose IIS over Apache because of features of C# 5.0 and ignoring the fact that you chose IIS in 2004, where C# 5.0 was not around. It's a dishonest argument.

Speaking of which. How can people claim that JS benefits from the same language running on client and server when 90% of server-side libraries do not work on the client and there are potentially major differences even in core library (e.g. forEach)?

Also, a huge part of JS ecosystem are kludges, crutches and workarounds that make the stack way, way more complex that it should be. (E.g. source maps. Imagine someone minifying PHP for faster parsing and then asking everyone to use some source mapping technology for debugging. They would be laughed out of any conference or discussion.) This mentality permeates everything. I mean, seriously, require directives need to be implemented as a library? Namespace isolation is a closure-based hack? Can you imaging stuff like that being tolerate for any other language?