> (does not fail or lose data, or get into a corrupt state easily)
The data is stored on IPFS primarily (Pick a number of different ipfs varieties, rust, golang, js). Oplog specific data is stored in a datastore-level instance, which utilizes c++ leveldown bindings. Code that is well tested and has never been proved to lose data due to being written in JS alone. Aside from that the programming language does not determine whether a developer creates crappy code. The developer does, horrible, inefficient, bug filled code can exist in any number of languages. Its really a matter of preference.
Side note: I used to absolutely hate JS until a began programming in it for many months. Originally programming Java
Nope. I actually just disagreed with you. I think JS is a robust language and I said why very clearly and politely.
You, however - well I stopped reading after your first sentence.
Good luck to you!
You didn't say why JS is robust, you twisted the word's definition to fit your point. Don't do that.
If your way of debating is to leave the debate when someone says something you don't like, then good luck working in IT.
Any language that has a dynamic & weak type system, and where monkey patching is not only allowed but used widely, cannot make a claim to leading to robust software.
I would argue that languages focusing on correctness are the ones that would have a good claim at producing more robust software. As you've asked, I would say that Rust, Ada, Haskell fit the bill... but even languages that focus on keeping simplicity and boring uniformity at scale, like Go and Java, could still make such claim (and lots of software written in them can be described as robust) a lot more than JS, which offers basically 0 features focused on correctness beyond the bare minimum.