JavaScript's non-existent relationship to Java

Despite the fact that I can no longer, by any stretch of the imagination, be referred to as a "beginner" where my career is concerned, I sometimes do like to read beginner books on tech. It's oddly soothing. There's also plenty I can learn in terms of how to communicate tech concepts and ideas, from the authors of such books, if not the actual tech itself.

And this is one such book that I picked up from the neighborhood library recently - How to be a Web Developer, by Radu Nicoara.

This book.

Now, this isn't one of my Reference Reviews - I didn't finish reading the book and this would be dishonest. Radu Nicorara probably knows his way around the building blocks of the World Wide Web and has, again, probably done a whole lot more than I have. After all, he published a book. And I give him all the credit in the world for even attempting it.

However...

...once I got to Page 60 (or thereabouts), I encountered a statement that was so egregious that it took me out of reading the book entirely. Not that I ever found the book all that engaging in the first place.

This passage shocked me.

JavaScript is a scripting language (meaning the code is not precompiled) that's derived from the Java programming language, hence the name.

I was in complete disbelief when I saw this. Just to be sure, I sent a photograph of the page to MetaAI, and MetaAI being the nice little bot it was, it described the passage as "a bit misleading".

A bit misleading?! Try "completely false".

The error

For anyone who might be tempted to repeat this, JavaScript is not derived from Java. Aside from the fact that they may both be described as programming languages (coding pedants may insist that in JavaScript's case, it's a loose description) they don't actually have anything to do with each other.

JavaScript began life as a loosely-typed client-side language meant for browsers to interpret. Java was (and still is) a strongly-typed compiled programming language. The names are similar, and the syntaxes are similar. But that's where the similarities end, and even these similarities can't be used as evidence for JavaScript's relationship to Java.

In fact, JavaScript's original name was Mocha. Yes, as in the coffee. It was changed to "JavaScript" as some kind of marketing ploy to mislead people into thinking it was a child of Java. Well, guess it worked!

Fancy a cuppa Mocha, luv?

This reminds me of an encounter on the Clubhouse app where I heard some American woman make the ridiculous claim that in the Chinese language, "the words for danger and opportunity are the same".  John F Kennedy, the 35th President of the USA, was the first to say this back in 1960, and he was wrong. In Chinese, danger is "危机" and opportunity is "机会". Both words contain the word "机", but "机" is also a suffix commonly used to describe machines such as "飞机" (flying machine, a.k.a aeroplane), "手机" (hand machine, a.k.a mobile phone) and "耳机" (ear machine, a.k.a earphones). At the risk of stating the painfully obvious - aeroplanes, mobile phones and earphones have fuck-all to do with danger or opportunity, just as JavaScript has no relation to Java.

Which tells us a couple things - just because two words sound the same or contain subsets of each other, does not make the things they are describing, related. Thus, just because Java and JavaScript both contain the words "Java", it doesn't follow that they're related in any way. The second thing this tells us is, if you don't speak a language, maybe keep the witty quotes to a minimum unless looking stupid brings you deep emotional satisfaction.

As for syntax, both Java and JavaScript's syntax is based on C. Curly brackets, semi-colons, function declarations and so on. But this similarity is not confined to Java and JavaScript. Several other languages such as PHP and C# also have great syntax similarities with Java. In terms of similarity, C# is even closer to Java than JavaScript is.

All in all...

It's not my intention to jump on Nicoara for this error. Whomever his editor was, shares the blame for this. And this glaring factual error aside, what little I read of his book seemed sensible. Therefore, I didn't contact Nicoara and inform him of this boo-boo. What good would it do? It's not like one can un-publish this book.

Besides, I'm not exactly perfect. Early in my blogging days, I probably made my fair share of factual errors. Though, in all fairness, it's not like I'm profiting off my blog, or asking people to pay for it.

All that aside, I used this as a teachable moment. Even if that little piece of programming history I taught was dryer than a nun's coochie.

Java nice day!
T___T