> low-effort dipshits
> they couldn't understand certain facts about the universe, even if they wanted to
> I wish the world wasn't like this.
Maybe "the world" isn't the problem in these interactions?
Here are a few examples.
Pronunciation - you make a fair point. In particular.
Elision - other languages drop more unstressed sounds, allowing phrases to roll off the tongue more easily and smoothly. From Latin on, most romance languages have a healthy amount of elision. In Spanish, this chaining of words is referred to as enlace or encadenamiento.
SVO - English relies on Subject-Verb-Object order to express what is being done by whom and to what. Compared to languages that use cases to do this, it can feel a bit tedious and disjointed. In general, case-based languages like Latin, do a good job of showing off what is happening given just a few words.
Word order - beyond SVO, english relies on strange, rarely-codified rules of word order, making it hard for even native speakers to sound conversationally proficient. For example, the adjective rule is maddening: https://www.gingersoftware.com/content/grammar-rules/adjecti...
Unpredictable declensions and conjugations - "I go, I did go, I went, I have gone" is way crazier than languages that are more rules-based regarding how words are constructed.
Borrows - I love how many words and phrases English has taken from other languages, but it loses internal cohesiveness due to its variety of external influences.
> Can we please try to stop talking about this specific language ecosystem as an awful deplorable hell hole or whatever?
Back in the second century BC, Cato the Elder ended his speeches with the phrase 'Carthago delenda est,' which is to say, 'Carthage must be destroyed.' It didn't matter what the ostensible topic of the speech was: above all, Carthage must be destroyed.
My opinion towards JavaScript is much like Cato's towards Carthage: it must be rooted out, eliminated and destroyed entirely. I don't know if I'd go quite so far as to say that the fundamental challenge of mass computing is the final destruction of JavaScript — but I want to say it, even though it's false.
JavaScript is a pox, a disaster, a shame. It is the most embarrassingly bad thing to become popular in computing since Windows 3.1. Its one virtue (that it's on every client device) is outshone by its plethora of flaws in much the same way that a matchstick is outshone by the sun, the stars and the primordial energy of the Big Bang added together.
JavaScript is the XML, the Yugo, the Therac-25 of programming languages. The sheer amount of human effort which has been expended working around its fundamental flaws instead of advancing the development of mankind is astounding. The fact that people would take this paragon of wasted opportunity and use it on the server side, where there are so many better alternatives (to a first approximation, every other programming language ever used), is utterly appalling.
JavaScript delenda est.