46 minutes ago, matt77hias said:

JavaScript is considered as the assembly language for the web since it is the only programming language (HTML is a markup language, not a programming language) understood by all web browsers. We do not include real assembly languages in this discussion although they are still kind of unavoidable in the end (unless you are programming directly in machine language instructions, but there is a kind of 1:1 mapping anyway between machine and assembly languages), because they are too low level to be practical on a large scale in our code bases. I think similar arguments hold for JavaScript as well in some sense and we must take this into account while talking about the impact of JavaScript. Languages like TypeScript, CoffeeScript, Elm, etc. all transcompile to JavaScript in the end, since browsers can handle only the latter. Typescript for instance is a superior alternative to JavaScript and many large companies adopt it or plan to adopt it. This is especially due to the dynamic typed nature of JavaScript becoming a bottleneck in large code bases, since programmers eventually realize that their architectures are built on quicksand: without giant test suites (larger than for statically typed languages at least) you have no idea when your program is going to break in at compile-time (there is even no compile-time because JavaScript is generally a purely interpreted language). Furthermore, JavaScript has and had problems with standardization and formal verification.

There is even an iconic picture illustrating the quality of JavaScript (I don't know if this is the original picture ):

JavaScript will get be replaced as well. JS is old any rusty, slow and extremely error prone.

All applications / libraries written in that language are a nightmare.

1 hour ago, trjh2k2 said:

I've never heard anyone make that comparison before.  And it's kind of a terrible analogy.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=javascript+assembly+language+of+the+web

For instance: https://www.hanselman.com/blog/JavaScriptIsWebAssemblyLanguageAndThatsOK.aspx

(Just Googled it for you since the first time, I have heard it was during lectures.)

1 hour ago, trjh2k2 said:

And it's kind of a terrible analogy.  Javascript is about as far from assembly as you can get in terms of the kinds of languages we've spoken about so far.

"Of course, it is inaccurate because it's an analogy. That said, as analogies go, it's pretty good. Sure, assemblers are architecture and processor specific. Maybe "JavaScript is the Web's Bytecode" is better. At the very least, JavaScript is a totally reasonable compile target."

1 hour ago, trjh2k2 said:

Javascript is about as far from assembly as you can get in terms of the kinds of languages we've spoken about so far.

You need to take a look at the definition of assembly, because it can be seen much broader.

Java Bytecode for instance is clearly an assembly language generating instructions for a virtual processor, the JVM.

The first point is that JavaScript is the lowest programming level you can reach if you target the web and consider your browser as processor dictating the instruction set. The second point is that if people start looking at JavaScript in this way, where assembly is something you avoid in 99% of the cases in arbitrary (non-embedded) software projects, they start recognizing that they need to use higher programming languages. Higher in the sense that these languages are laid on top of JavaScript, though not that fundamentally different compared to the gap between x86 and C/C++ for instance.

Of course there are other languages A laid on top of other languages B. But here, nor A nor B are the most useful languages for general programming problems. JS on the other hand is completely inferior to TS for instance. With the exception of using existing JS libraries, you could not have an excuse to use JS.

Possible non-functional criteria used: usability, reliability, recoverability, supportability, adaptability, maintainability, configurability, etc. Applying these criteria to large general software projects, makes full JS (as opposed to the alternatives) as inferior as full assembly (as opposed to the alternatives) IMHO.

32 minutes ago, trjh2k2 said:

I don't consider the browser to be a processor, I think that's also a bad analogy.

All VMs are abstract (i.e. not concrete = backed by ICs) processors: JVM, CLR, JS Engine.

Javascript is actually quite similar to the original C in abstract philosophy: hide the details of the underlying machine under a uniform interface, and be prepared to execute in a broad variety of environments. Yes, JS is at least one layer of abstraction higher than C in terms of its "platform", but it's still a similar thought process.

Maybe you don't see the "use" of the similarities, but dismissing the parallels is a bit hasty IMO. And I don't see why having written a game in a language suddenly makes you authoritative on whether or not anyone else should make observations about that language and its similarities to others ;-)