I had to check to see if the article was dated April 1.<p>JS is both a compiler target and a language itself.  WebAssembly enhances the runtime as a compiler target.<p>JS is also moving very fast, as evidenced by Babel.  There are some big, bold ideas being explored in React, Angular, Om, elm, clojurescript, etc.  I hesitate to take seriously anyone who thinks this is a bad thing, just as I hesitate to take seriously anyone who is a strong supporter of a major political party.<p>We simply don&#x27;t need a single point of authority telling us the best way to do things, even if they are soon obsoleted, competition and sharing of ideas is good.  I&#x27;ve learned a lot by exploring all of the frameworks he mentioned.  Recently the Ember and React teams have been collaborating extensively, and I can&#x27;t wait to see all that comes out of it (notably with respect to styling components).<p>The most embarrassing assertion the author makes is that CS curricula teach &quot;programming languages&quot;. It teaches a way of thinking, and it really doesn&#x27;t matter much which language is used as long as the basic principles are covered. JS might make a good language to look at when studying language design tradeoffs, since in some ways it falls short but has also become the dominant language when measured in terms of the number of runtimes in use in the world at any given moment.<p>So while the author does seem to wish to be constructive (he links to a vague proposal) the article is just clickbait and really shouldn&#x27;t be taken seriously.  If you are a new programmer reading the article and feeling discouraged, don&#x27;t lose heart.  Build stuff and you&#x27;ll learn.  Eventually try some other languages if all you&#x27;ve tried is JS, but don&#x27;t listen to the nonsense in the article.