OTOH I think JS has great ergonomics especially wrt closures which a number of popular languages get wrong. Arrow functions provide a syntactically pleasant way to write lambdas, let/const having per iteration binding in loops to avoid nasty surprises when capturing variables, and a good number of standard methods that exploit them (eg map/filter on arrays). I also think, though a lot of people would disagree because of function coloring, that built-in async is a great boon for a scripting languages, you can do long operations like IO without having to worry about threading or locking up a thread, so you get to work with a single threaded mental model with a good few sharp edges removed.

That is in fact incredibly useful

- no private properties (https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Refe...)

- no readonly properties: You can use a getter. Or define the property as non-writable, the syntax isn't nice but in my opinion it's still much nicer than what the article proposes.

Some of the points are just a matter of taste ("this" is awkward)

There's the implementation itself which forces you to use non-idiomatic code for no good reason or benefit (Class.init instead of new, just why? You can absolutely return a constructor function there while preserving everything else)

Doing what the article proposes also destroys the ability to do instanceof checks because the prototype of instances is not set (can be fixed), and inheritance is severely limited if you want to preserve any of the purported benefits. You might say that inheritance is actually not a good thing and so it's a feature, not a bug, but if that's your opinion why are you trying to mimic a class?

> you still have guilty parties going free anyways since the wrong person is convicted

which is a non sequitur.

With this statement I'm inclined to believe the title. Last I checked there are (n-1)! permutations for a list of length n. Not knowing this off the top of your head is fine, but making this kind of comment is an unforced error and it doesn't reflect well on the author.

The IKEA effect is not "self assembly", the IKEA effect is "I think of this piece of furniture more highly because I assembled it myself". The IKEA effect compares how people feel about the same piece of furniture when they've assembled it themselves vs when someone else did it.

> Unfortunately, the TC39 process at this time did not require heavy implementation involvement and so while many implementers were skeptical, the feature was included and standardized as part of ES6.

That is preposterous.