I will never understand people complaining about JS (or any other language, for that matter) on the grounds that it doesn't have some very specific thing "in the standard library".
That's what a package manager is for, friend. So that you don't need to ship everyone's kitchensink with the language runtime whether you need it or not.
The software development world needs a serious reconsideration as to its priorities and metrics, honestly.
@joepie91 JS in particular I feel bad just the right amount of things in the standard library. Maybe there are a couple of things I've even take out, but generally it's fine
@halfy I mean, endless discussions could be had (and are in fact had!) about the "right" amount of stuff in a standard library. It's a favourite bikeshed.
But does it even matter what's in the standard library if it's trivial to manage libraries anyway? What's the meaningful difference between 'standard library' and 'installed library' anyway?
@halfy (I mean, there *are* some meaningful differences, but... all of the fundamental ones are in favour of putting *less* stuff in the standard library, and that's rarely the thing that people are loudly clamoring for)
Tangentially, I feel like there's a pretty strong correlation between "arguing that the standard library of a language should be extensive" and the problem of "popular things are often those that superficially sound like they have a lot of features, even if it comes at the expense of reliability, maintainability, complexity, etc.".
The latter is often recognized as a problem around here (and rightly so). It saddens me that the former then gets missed so often by the same people.