• grue@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    2 days ago

    Ok, in a browser is fine.

    JavaScript was never fit for purpose even in a browser. We could’ve had Python or Scheme in the browser instead, but nooooo, Brandon Eich had to be fucking incompetent.

      • grue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        2 days ago

        I wasn’t idly speculating about languages that I personally happen to like better; I was listing the two languages that Netscape was actively considering at the time before they decided to glom on to the Java hype. When I say “we could’ve had Python or Scheme,” I mean Netscape almost picked Python or Scheme.

        If it makes you feel any better, I get the impression that Scheme would’ve been the more likely of the two. Also, this was happening in 1995, so Lua was less than two years old at the time and, according to this page, not internationally known yet (that would happen in 1996).

    • flamingos-cant@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      What are you talking about, giving one of the only programming languages where binary sizes matters a tiny standard library is a great idea!

    • plyth@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      There was an older alternative with PS and Tcl from Sun. I don’t know if I would like that more.