And it would still be better than java. :-)

Twenty years I predicted to various peers that Java would become the new COBOL, the lazy enterprise’s default choice of our time, and I’m very sorry to have been proved right.

lol. A generation of script kiddies too lazy to learn Java invented NodeJS, so they could run the toy version of Java on the server side. Then they have the audacity to claim the shoulders of giants upon which they stand should've been strong enough to comprehend JS rather than Java...even though those giants invented BOTH JS and Java before you were even born.

Here's a newsflash for you: if the Netscape inventors of JavaScript had been capable of making Java run in the browser then all you kids would be running Java instead of JS today.

The only reason JS exists at all is because early browsers had limited memory and CPU back in 1990s, so they cobbled something together over a weekend and named it JavaScript. Now that JS is running server side, these kids claim that's the way it should've been from the beginning. No, sorry JS is a train wreck compared to Java, which is why MSFT had to come to the rescue with TypeScript.

Oh, it’s you again.

Yep. "Java is the new COBOL" was simply irresistible. If you want to troll a Java developer, that was absolute perfection.

JavaScript and even modern TypeScript has syntax that is extremely similar to Java, so you can't really say that when I claim Java was already "mostly" everything we needed (WAY before "Go" and "Rust" were invented) that somehow that means I would have therefore said the same about COBOL.

There is such a thing as "finally getting it right". We don't need to replace English with something "new" every couple of years, and writing instructions for machines is the same. The syntax of Java was "almost perfect" and is STILL extremely similar in TS/JS so there was no need to "burn it all down" like Go and Rust did.

Why do you think JavaScript has the word "Java" right in it. lol. Must have been something in there that was good to this very day.

> Why do you think JavaScript has the word "Java" right in it. lol. Must have been something in there that was good to this very day.

Eh, no. From the mouth of Brendan Eich himself [0]:

> InfoWorld: As I understand it, JavaScript started out as Mocha, then became LiveScript and then became JavaScript when Netscape and Sun got together. But it actually has nothing to do with Java or not much to do with it, correct?

> Eich: That’s right. It was all within six months from May till December (1995) that it was Mocha and then LiveScript. And then in early December, Netscape and Sun did a license agreement and it became JavaScript. And the idea was to make it a complementary scripting language to go with Java, with the compiled language.

It was completely down to marketing. I've heard it described as riding the coattails of Java, which Sun was dumping huge amounts of money into marketing to begin with. Allusions to "something in there" notwithstanding.

[0] https://www.infoworld.com/article/2653798/javascript-creator...

As http://james-iry.blogspot.com/2009/05/brief-incomplete-and-m... put it, “Later, in an effort to cash in on the popularity of Java the language is renamed JavaScript. Later still, in an effort to cash in on the popularity of skin diseases the language is renamed ECMAScript.”

Eich started work at Netscape Communications Corporation in April 1995. Eich originally joined intending to put Scheme "in the browser", but his Netscape superiors insisted that the language's syntax resemble that of Java. As a result, Eich devised a language that had much of the functionality of Scheme, the object-orientation of Self, and the syntax of Java.

From day one, Eich was told to make it "Java-like". Netscape first tried to get Java itself running in the browser, even before developing JavaScript. JavaScript looks like Java not by accident but on purpose.