It really doesn't, though. For the first 12 or so years of its existence it was basically unusable. It wasn't until jQuery hit the scene that it started to meet even the bare minimum level of usability. Even then, it still took a huge amount of effort and investment from Google, Apple and Mozilla to make it what it is today, which admittedly isn't very good at all.
Even now, it generally only looks like a "good" option to those who don't have experience with other, better programming languages (PHP excluded; it's nearly as bad as JavaScript is). Developers who do have more experience with other languages usually use JavaScript very reluctantly, and this is especially true when it comes to the best developers.
The fact that CoffeeScript, TypeScript and Dart get so much attention just further shows how bad JavaScript is. Developers don't want to use it, and so they try to hide it to a large extent (CoffeeScript), or modify it to be more like languages like C++, Java and C# (TypeScript and Dart).
JavaScript should have been replaced many years ago, if it ever should have even been included in Navigator so many years ago.
> For the first 12 or so years of its existence it was basically unusable. It wasn't until jQuery hit the scene that it started to meet even the bare minimum level of usability.
jQuery didn't address problems with the JavaScript language -- to the contrary, it's a pretty good example of the power JS has and what can be accomplished with it. The problem jQuery addressed was the DOM API (and some other points of interface with the browser), which was probably the most significant pain point, and which probably wouldn't have been much different had another language been chosen.
> Developers who do have more experience with other languages usually use JavaScript very reluctantly
Yes, by and large, one of the biggest problems with JavaScript might be that people seem to approach it as if they don't or shouldn't have to learn it instead of whatever else they're already familiar with.
I fit that description from 1999-2003 or so -- along with the description of someone who had/has experience with other "better" programming languages -- but after a few key pointers about scope and functions from someone who had taken the time to learn to use it, I don't share your apparent view at all. My experience has been that it's serviceable and more or less on par with Perl, Python, and Ruby... to the point where my suspicion is that most developers for whom the language itself is a significant obstacle wouldn't do appreciably better were JS magically replaced with something like any of those three.
> Developers don't want to use it, and so they try to hide it to a large extent (CoffeeScript)
CoffeeScript is JavaScript semantics with different tokens and a handful of shortcuts/sugar. More power to people who enjoy using it, but to the extent anybody's arguing that it's good enough, they're also arguing that JS really wasn't that bad all along.
Even now, it generally only looks like a "good" option to those who don't have experience with other, better programming languages (PHP excluded; it's nearly as bad as JavaScript is). Developers who do have more experience with other languages usually use JavaScript very reluctantly, and this is especially true when it comes to the best developers.
The fact that CoffeeScript, TypeScript and Dart get so much attention just further shows how bad JavaScript is. Developers don't want to use it, and so they try to hide it to a large extent (CoffeeScript), or modify it to be more like languages like C++, Java and C# (TypeScript and Dart).
JavaScript should have been replaced many years ago, if it ever should have even been included in Navigator so many years ago.