Nor did I say it was a fair comparison, nor did I even really say it's an issue (of any size).
But surely, you can see that - as was the intent of my reply to the other person, from an OO/strictly typed background, JavaScript is indeed very easy to get wrong. That's no different to any other language if we only have surface knowledge in them.
In other languages, such as Java, the primitive boolean datatype exists, and null exists, but a boolean can never be null, it is either true or false. Again, that's because of strict typing, and strictly typed languages simply make more sense in my head.
Does that stop me using JS? No... but you were curious, so I expanded on my comment.
Nor did I say it was a fair comparison, nor did I even really say it's an issue (of any size).
But surely, you can see that - as was the intent of my reply to the other person, from an OO/strictly typed background, JavaScript is indeed very easy to get wrong. That's no different to any other language if we only have surface knowledge in them.
In other languages, such as Java, the primitive boolean datatype exists, and null exists, but a boolean can never be null, it is either true or false. Again, that's because of strict typing, and strictly typed languages simply make more sense in my head.
Does that stop me using JS? No... but you were curious, so I expanded on my comment.
I'm aware of how to use JavaScript, and do so more times than I'd like, so no need for the documents, or the defence of JS, but thanks.
There's no way to respond to that statement productively.