1. Test coverage not consisting of flaky brittle tests
2. Native type checking in JS (v8 engine)
3. Less meetings.

@irene it’s logical enough. What jumps out at you?

@irene weak typing agreed. But all of these are present in n-number of languages :) I think JS gets needlessly bashed. When used properly it’s great (much like any other tool).

Although I’m still impartial to the idea of replacing everything with erlang ;)

@irene unless you are doing any gpu (cuda) work which is most definitely not imperative.

Again being someone who codes JS almost daily for a living, I have yet to really feel it as inelegant any more than other languages I’ve had the pleasure of making acquaintance with.

But to each their own.

Fewer meetings!

(Sorry I'll switch pedant mode off)

@Robinha haha good catch, thank you. We should have a meeting to discuss your findings.

@irene build in type checking:
1. typeof
2. ===
3. Object.prototype.toString.call(yourMysteryObject)
4. yourMysteryObject.constructor

There’re so many ways. So many... 🤦‍♂️

@sunfishcc unfortunately only runtime :)