&gt; I have no idea what you mean by JavaScript being &quot;easier&quot; to learn than C++. My experience has been the exact opposite.<p>You are a tiny minority in this. I&#x27;ve taught C++ and JS and have never once seen JS be harder to pick up.<p>&gt; On the other hand, in JavaScript I have never found anything even remotely close to methodological guidance for writing programs.<p>The #1 selling JS book is (was) literally called &quot;JavaScript: The Good Parts&quot;. It teaches &quot;methodological guidance&quot; for writing JavaScript programs. Just as modern C++ books teach the &quot;good parts&quot; of C++.<p>&gt; JavaScript seems to make sense of anything as long as it is syntactically valid - a very low bar.<p>That&#x27;s (a) not true, with the static resolution semantics in modules; (b) to the extent that it is true is mostly a criticism of dynamic typing, which has a lot of advantages and is not a criticism of JavaScript.<p>&gt; JavaScript&#x27;s ability to run in the browser is, as !far as I can tell, its only advantage over C++.<p>Memory safety? GC? A module system (as compared to #include)? Dynamic typing? This is silly.<p>(NB: I also think C++ has a lot of advantages over JS for certain domains. I&#x27;m a language pluralist.)