Perhaps less in what features to avoid, but there's plenty of hidden gotchas to avoid in JavaScript still.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=et8xNAc2ic8 https://dorey.github.io/JavaScript-Equality-Table/
> C++ is a huge language, javascript is a relativly small one.
C++'s ISO/IEC 14882:2003 weighs in at 786 pages, compared to ECMA-262 (5.1 Edition)'s 258 pages (measuring by PDF reader). A ~3x difference, but not quite the order of magnitude I'd expect from huge vs small.
That's not meant to be snarky, but what's is the minimum size of a language spec? I don't know the answer, but I'd think the delta over that would be the better comparison. For example if you can't really spec a language in less than 200 pages then C++'s spec is more like 10 times as big as JavaScript.
> Subtract and branch if not equal to zero[edit] > The SBNZ a,b,c,d instruction ("Subtract and Branch if Not equal to Zero") subtracts the contents at address a from the contents at address b, stores the result at address c, and then, if the result is not 0, transfers control to address d (if the result is equal zero, execution proceeds to the next instruction in sequence).
This is all of it.
EDIT: Said Wikipedia page was sufficiently detailed for me to implement a Brainfuck -> MSIL compiler without additional external references, which I was able to verify worked with a Mandelbrot renderer.
TL;DR: don't trust anyone who tries to use the length of a specification as a comparable proxy for complexity. I can write a 10,000-page standard for Scheme if you hire me to.
How would you prefer to compare language sizes? Gut feel? Surely that's even worse.
I'll certainly admit that - like LOC measurements - it's a metric one can't take too seriously on it's own. On the other hand, it's a useful starting point for discussing said variables.
For example, when I was eyeballing the Javascript standard (I've already read the C++ standard a decent bit), I saw it (like C++'s) defines a grammar, and includes some core library bits (e.g. the Object type.) On the other hand, I didn't see the full browser DOM API you'd use when writing most Javascript - but then again, you don't see any modern graphics or UI widget APIs in the C++ standard either.
This was enough to convince me that they were comparable enough for an orders-of-magnitude comparison, at least. My gut reaction was that C++'s standard might be more detailed - but that'd be biased in my favor, further undermining the argument that Javascript is significantly smaller than C++.
> I can write a 10,000-page standard for Scheme if you hire me to.
But can you find a 10,000 page standard, for any language? Eventually everyone hits a limit to what they consider worthwhile to write, short of perverse incentives.
> How would you prefer to compare language sizes? Gut
> feel? Surely that's even worse.
It seems relevant in the context of how difficult it is to master a given language, which spawned this thread of debate. Do you disagree that language size is any sort of barrier?
Again, only one metric, to be taken with a measure of salt. But would you prefer we compare languages based on gut feel? Or is comparing languages unnecessary as well?
> It's as pointless as the classic vim vs. emacs argument.
Understanding the merits of vim vs. emacs informs you which you might prefer. The answer to that argument, over which is "ultimately better" is certainly pointless. You can simply choose whichever works best for you, especially as you can change your mind mostly at will.
But people don't simply have the choice of "choose whichever works best for you" when it comes to programming languages on a team project. Nor are languages as fungible as editors when it comes to changing your mind - switching languages mid-project is a massive time sink, and frequently fatal to the project.
Including the standard library.
I don't know about JavaScript, but at least Python, Java and C# are actually quite more when including the standard library.