Felix Crux

Technology & Miscellanea 

Tags: , , ,

Doug Crockford gave a talk at the University of Waterloo last night as part of the Yahoo! Hack-U (University Hack Day), on the same topic as his new book, JavaScript: The Good Parts. I was lucky enough to get a seat, and have tried to condense my nine pages of notes into an overview of the highlights of his talk. Though I've rewritten parts, all of the content and wisdom is Doug's — I'm just the humble scribe. Of course, any errors of transcription are mine.


Believe it or not, JavaScript has good parts! It's an odd language, because it contains some of the best and some of the worst ideas in programming language design, and has managed to become both the most popular and most reviled programming language out there.

Of all languages, JavaScript probably has the broadest range of skills among its users. It appeals to both computer scientists and cut'n'paste beginners with no clear idea of what they are doing. It's pretty much the only language that people use without ever learning! That's both the cause of a lot of the awful code out there, and an astonishing testament to the fact that it's actually possible to do that.

JavaScript is not what makes in-browser programming awful — it's the DOM. Any language would be painful if you had to use it to interact with the DOM. It's also what makes things slow and inefficient.

The history of the language is incredibly diverse: it's been influenced by Scheme (lambdas, loose typing), Self (prototypal inheritance, dynamic objects), Java (syntax), and Perl (regular expressions).

The Bad Parts

Global variables: This is bad for all the same reasons as in other languages, but in addition, JavaScript will implicitly declare your typo-ed identifiers, and silently carry on.

+ both adds and concatenates: You can get away with this in Java because of the type restrictions, but in JavaScript you'll blithely try to add a number to, say, a form input which looks like a number but is actually a string.

Semicolon insertion: This seems like a nice, beginner-friendly feature, at first. It's implemented by the parser running along until it hits a syntax error, at which point it rewinds a little, inserts a semicolon in a likely place, and tries again. This should scare you.

typeof: What's the typeof an object? Object. Of an array? Object. Of null? Object.

with and eval: Security implications are bad. eval is probably the single worst misused feature. If you find that you want to use it, step away from the computer.

Fake arrays: They're actually hash tables, which is OK if that's what you want, and if that's what you call them.

== and != do type coercion. Unfortunately nobody can figure out exactly when or how. For example, 0 == '0' is true, but false == 'false' is false, and '' == '0' is false, but 0 == '' is true. Thankfully, you can just always use ===.

false, null, undefined, NaN: These are all almost the same, but not quite.

Bad Genetics

There is also a good deal of bad behaviour that's inherited and shared with other languages: block-less statements (e.g. one-line if and so on); expression statements (lone expressions on a line that will be evaluated and discarded); IEEE floating point (0.1 + 0.2 != 0.3); ++ and -- (leads developers into clever behaviour); and fall-through of switch blocks.

Doug had an amusing anecdote about an episode in the development of JSLint: A user contacted him suggesting that fall-through of cases be flagged as bad behaviour. Dough replied with an explanation of the elegance of nicely structured, intentional fall-through, which convinced the user to retract his feature request. In the user's response, in addition to withdrawing the feature request, he reported another bug. When Doug investigated it, it turned out to be... yup, unwanted switch fall-through. At that moment, Doug says, I was enlightened.

Good Parts

JavaScript was the first really mainstream language with lambda and first-class functions, which other languages are now adopting. This makes JS an influential language!

Dynamic objects are simple containers that can grow or shrink, and since they are based on prototypal inheritance, they aren't limited to just being instances of a class. This is a strictly more powerful object model, but it takes some getting used to for most people.

Loose typing is one of the controversial parts, which some people would consider one of the bad things. However, Doug's conclusion is that the added expressiveness and ease of use is well worth it, since the kind of bugs avoided by strict typing are usually easy to fix anyway.



Consider the code:

var names = ['zero', 'one, 'two', ...]
var digit_name = function (n) {
  return names[n];

Though it works, it makes use of the nasty, global, names, which could lead to all kinds of nonsense. We could move the variable into the scope of the function instead, but that would be rather inefficient. Instead, try this:

var digit_name = (function() {
  var names = ['zero', 'one', 'two', ...];
  return function (n) {
    return names[n];

This is an example of one of the good parts: closures. We can define the variable just once, and then have our function close over it, preserving state. The trailing () at the very end cause the anonymous function to be executed right away, binding the returned function to our variable. This is awesome.

Style Isn't Subjective

Brace positioning is more or less a holy war without any right answer — except in JavaScript, where same-line braces are right and you should always use them. Here's why:

  ok: false;

return {
  ok: true;

What's the difference between these two snippets? Well, in the first one, you silently get something completely different than what you wanted. The lone return gets mangled by the semicolon insertion process (remember that from the list of Bad Parts?), becomes return; and returns nothing. The rest of the code becomes a plain old block statement, with ok: becoming a label (of all things)! Having a label there might make sense in C, where you can goto, but in JavaScript, it makes no sense in this context. And what happens to false? It becomes one of those expression statements mentioned in the Bad Parts: it gets evaluated and completely ignored. Finally, the trailing semicolon — what about that? Do we at least get a syntax error there? Nope: empty statement, like in C.

Use same-line braces, folks.


JSLint defines a professional subset of JavaScript, and imposes programming discipline. You should do everything it tells you, even if it hurts your feelings. Doug says JSLint is smarter about JavaScript than I am, and probably smarter than you are too.

History and Future

AJAX and the resurgence in popularity of JavaScript could have happened way earlier, but Netscape 4 and the other browsers of the time we so awful. Netscape 4 was a crime against humanity. IE 6 was the best browser in the world — and think of just how bad it is.

However, all that may have been good for JavaScript: had anything happened, it would have been thrown out and replaced with something much better! JavaScript would have died with Netscape if not for Microsoft diligently duplicating it, bugs and all.

Perhaps the very best part of JavaScript: stability! No new design errors since 1999! Also, no new versions.

Thankfully, ECMAScript Fifth Edition is in the works (and is actually readable), with nice features like support for object hardening and a strict mode (invoked with "use strict";, which is an expression statement under older versions).

Unfortunately, we're still waiting on implementations. Microsoft will likely have the first working version, but they won't ship it until whenever IE 9 comes out. Mozilla seem to just be waiting to see what Microsoft does, and they'll react to that. Apple can't comment on future products. Google will just do whatever Apple does (UPDATE: Now that I am an intern at Google, I should probably clarify that that's Doug Crockford's statement; I know nothing about any Google plans on the matter).

The Really Good Parts

If you use JavaScript, you have a potential audience of billions. It's the most widespread — and despite the bugs, the most cross-platform — system you can use.

It is possible to write really good code. In fact, it is mandatory if you want to maintain sanity.

If you avoid the bad parts, it works really well. It's not just usable and pleasant; there is brilliance in it.

Misc. Q&A

At the Q&A afterwards, there were a few interesting gems:

  • The people in charge of the language (ECMA), and the people in charge of the DOM (the W3C), have never had a joint session or meeting, but he's trying to change that.
  • He thinks the DOM is awful, and HTML 5 is taking it in exactly the wrong direction.

The Book

I'm going to wrap this up the same way he did: with a plug for his new book, JavaScript: The Good Parts (Amazon.com, Amazon.ca). If you do any JavaScript development, get a copy! It contains all of the above wisdom, and much more.

Now excuse me; I'm off to do some JavaScript.

blog comments powered by Disqus