>A claim I didn't make. They TREATED Javascript like Java, and tried to adopt the behaviors.
Again, because you're making nebulous claims it's really hard to argue against. I still don't see how Google treated JavaScript like Java. I don't know what that entails.
>Ironically it's hard to come up with a lot of material from that time period, but generally you can see the number of libraries that would try to create Classical inheritance so we could use Java OOP conventions.
You must be thinking about the Closure Compiler[1], which was a transpilation solution driven by JavaScript comments which provided type and directive decorations around raw JS source allowing compile-time checks. All it was a proto-TypeScript. Do you think TypeScript is Microsoft attempt to treat JavaScript like Java, because TypeScript provides OO constructs (like classes, inheritance, polymorphism)? Because that's what you're saying.
>Ironically it's hard to come up with a lot of material from that time period,
And my argument is, you won't find anything, because there was nothing to it. It was irrational and emotional argument.
>I mean, if someone shows up and starts saying the language is shitty and we should all be doing it differently,
And they were right. For example, people complained about NaCL/PNaCL (sometimes for good reasons, it was a proprietary solution) but WebAssembly is the spiritual successor to NaCL/PNaCL. JavaScript is still terrible for writing large amounts of code and this is why people use TypeScript to make it palatable.
>I'll just say that the market is clearly not convinced by your arguments
I would respectfully disagree. And my counter argument is the popularity and plethora of transpilation languages and pre-processing frameworks for the entire browser tech stack (HTML/JS/CSS). If you're writing 100k lines of JS code, you're not writing it in vanilla JavaScript, unless you're a sado-masochist and you like pain. Front-end devs have also come around on static typing because you really don't know pain until you start dealing with what should be trivial bugs in a large application written in a dynamic language. Compile-time checks and AOT optimizations are incredibly powerful tools.
Again, because you're making nebulous claims it's really hard to argue against. I still don't see how Google treated JavaScript like Java. I don't know what that entails.
>Ironically it's hard to come up with a lot of material from that time period, but generally you can see the number of libraries that would try to create Classical inheritance so we could use Java OOP conventions.
You must be thinking about the Closure Compiler[1], which was a transpilation solution driven by JavaScript comments which provided type and directive decorations around raw JS source allowing compile-time checks. All it was a proto-TypeScript. Do you think TypeScript is Microsoft attempt to treat JavaScript like Java, because TypeScript provides OO constructs (like classes, inheritance, polymorphism)? Because that's what you're saying.
>Ironically it's hard to come up with a lot of material from that time period,
And my argument is, you won't find anything, because there was nothing to it. It was irrational and emotional argument.
>I mean, if someone shows up and starts saying the language is shitty and we should all be doing it differently,
And they were right. For example, people complained about NaCL/PNaCL (sometimes for good reasons, it was a proprietary solution) but WebAssembly is the spiritual successor to NaCL/PNaCL. JavaScript is still terrible for writing large amounts of code and this is why people use TypeScript to make it palatable.
>I'll just say that the market is clearly not convinced by your arguments
I would respectfully disagree. And my counter argument is the popularity and plethora of transpilation languages and pre-processing frameworks for the entire browser tech stack (HTML/JS/CSS). If you're writing 100k lines of JS code, you're not writing it in vanilla JavaScript, unless you're a sado-masochist and you like pain. Front-end devs have also come around on static typing because you really don't know pain until you start dealing with what should be trivial bugs in a large application written in a dynamic language. Compile-time checks and AOT optimizations are incredibly powerful tools.
[1] https://developers.google.com/closure/compiler/