The story behind this is that the specification of the JavaScript language is closely tied to what browser vendors are willing to implement. For a feature to land in JavaScript, vendors must first provide native support for it (which is a long, error-prone and sometimes difficult process).
So the reasoning behind these thin wrappers and weird syntax is that they're easier and faster to implement.
That said, some things could have used more time and thought put into them (ex. auto-binding of class functions/methods), as once something has made it into the specification changing/removing it is sometimes impossible (vendors also strive for maximum backward-compatibility).
The story behind this is that the specification of the JavaScript language is closely tied to what browser vendors are willing to implement. For a feature to land in JavaScript, vendors must first provide native support for it (which is a long, error-prone and sometimes difficult process).
So the reasoning behind these thin wrappers and weird syntax is that they're easier and faster to implement.
That said, some things could have used more time and thought put into them (ex. auto-binding of class functions/methods), as once something has made it into the specification changing/removing it is sometimes impossible (vendors also strive for maximum backward-compatibility).
Thank you, that’s a really helpful perspective!