That Javascript is the greatest programming lanuage

1. My opponent concedes that machine code is not adopted universally in any specific implementation. If I was to write code for an i86 and want it to run on a 4-core x64 configuration, or a microwave for that matter, I would have no chance. A language is said to be "adopted" by a platform when it is usable across that platform AND between that platform and all other platforms that adopt the language. A given implementation of machine code is far less often adopted than Javascript. My opponent's claim that he is arguing for machine code generally is as silly as arguing Jet Aircraft over a Boeing 747-400 in a topic on the greatest vehicle. In both cases, one is a much more defined case than the other. If we are to compare like with like, we must take a specific implementation of said machine code - or to use our example, "Jet Aircraft" is not a vehicle, it is a type of vehicle, just as machine code is not a programming language because in and of itself it does not qualify as a written SET of instructions (there is no unified set of accepted machine language codes). Therefore I claim machine code IS specific to each processor, unlike Javascript, which is completely abstracted. Thus Javascript is more widely adopted. Now, count with me . .. that's 1 for Javascript, 0 for machine code. I'll keep a running tally for you as you seem to doubt my mathematics. 2. My opponent claims that since machine code is only used in-house by big developers, only those programmers need to find it easy to learn. He asserts they have all the support they need. First of all, there is no factual basis for my opponent's claim. Many professional programmers lament how difficult it was for them to learn machine code. Second I contend that usually machine code is programmed by those people that designed the chip. The reason for that is that it's too difficult to teach somebody else how to use the machine code for a wristwatch. In these cases there can be no claim that it's easy to learn. Third, my opponent is correct in saying it is often used by software developers for computers who are not amateurs. The reason why amateurs don't is because it's really hard to learn. But this fact in and of itself doesn't make it any easier to learn for professional programmers. In fact, I argue the only reason why professional programmers are able to is because of the money held by these software companies. But seen objectively, the language is still comparatively harder than javascript, which both amateurs and professionals alike find easy to pick up and learn as I have shown in previous rounds. My opponent questions the importance/relevance of this point: simply put, a easier to learn language is greater because 1) I said so in round 1, in my definitions, and 2) ease of learning encourages development which makes the language fulfill its role as providing a medium of communication between human and computer better. Because Javascript is easier to learn I win the point. I think that's 2 for Javascript, 0 for machine code. 3. This was conceded by my opponent. So, Javascript has 3 points, and machine code has 0. 4. "Javascript can't talk to the machine" > that depends on the machine in question. Anyway, here is a full list of every command you can possibly give an x86 CPU: . http://en.wikipedia.org.... I challenge my opponent to write a hello world program. My guess is that he'll have no idea where to start. Power is all about doing more while writing less code. Javascript allows you to do anything assembler can do, except that it does it in only a few lines. My opponent also claims that Javascript must be changed into machine code. This is true, and is an unfortunate side-effect of abstraction. If processors ran Javascript natively rather than interpretively we would have come into the quantum age decades ago. But my crazy theories aside, that doesn't make Javascript any less powerful. Second, I maintain that machine code has no support for things like OOP, which must be "emulated" using a silly little programmer's trick for machine code. Therefore the instruction set itself is less powerful. Therefore the language is less powerful. Therefore Javascript is more powerful. QED. By my calculations, Javascript now has 4 points, machine code has 0. 5. This was conceded by myself (though I still think speed gains are minimal in practice, despite my opponent correctly pointing out machine code runs faster in theory, and that this is because compilers can usually think of better ways to do things with machine code than humans). So, by my count, that leaves us at . .. 4 for Javascript, 1 for machine code. Javascript also gets 9000 bonus points for being awesome. So given that Javascript is better than machine code by a 9004:1 ratio, I think it is clear who has won the debate.