No programming language is perfect. JavaScript has its share of design errors, such as the overloading of + to mean both addition and concatenation with type coercion, and the error-prone with statement should be avoided. The reserved word policies are much too strict. Semicolon insertion was a huge mistake, as was the notation for literal regular expressions. These mistakes have led to programming errors, and called the design of the language as a whole into question. Fortunately, many of these problems can be mitigated with a good lint program.
没有什么编程语言是完美的。JavaScript也有它设计上的错误，比如重载的+号随着类型的不同既表示"相加"又表示"连接"，和本该避免的有错误倾向的 with 语句。它的保留字策略过于严格。分号的插入是一个巨大的错误，比如作为字面正则表达式的符号时。这些失误已直接导致编程中的错误，也使这门语言的整体设计遭人质疑。还好，这些问题中有许多都可以在良好的 lint 程序中得以缓解。
The design of the language on the whole is quite sound. Surprisingly, the ECMAScript committee does not appear to be interested in correcting these problems. Perhaps they are more interested in making new ones.
这门语言的整体设计（上的问题）是相当明显的。奇怪的是ECMAScript委员会并没有对修正其中存在的问题表现出太大的兴趣，也许他们更热衷于制造新的问题。
Some of the earlier implementations of JavaScript were quite buggy. This reflected badly on the language. Compounding that, those implementations were embedded in horribly buggy web browsers.
JavaScript的一些早期实现有许多bug，这反过来对语言本身产生了很坏的影响。更糟糕的是这些满是bug的实现是嵌入在满是bug的web浏览器中的。
Nearly all of the books about JavaScript are quite awful. They contain errors, poor examples, and promote bad practices. Important features of the language are often explained poorly, or left out entirely. I have reviewed dozens of JavaScript books, and I can only recommend one: JavaScript: The Definitive Guide (4th Edition) by David Flanagan. (Attention authors: If you have written a good one, please send me a review copy.)
几乎所有的JavaScript书都是相当可怕的。它们包含错误，包含不好的例子，并鼓励不好的做法。JavaScript语言的一些重要特性它们要么没有解释清楚，要么根本就没有提及。我看过很多JavaScript的书，但我只能推荐一本：David Flanagan著的 JavaScript: The Definitive Guide (4th Edition) （《JavaScript权威指南 第四版》）。（作者们请注意：如果你们写出了好书请发给我一份副本，我给你们校对。）
The official specification for the language is published by ECMA. The specification is of extremely poor quality. It is difficult to read and very difficult to understand. This has been a contributor to the Bad Book problem because authors have been unable to use the standard document to improve their own understanding of the language. ECMA and the TC39 committee should be deeply embarrassed.
ECMA公布的官方语言规范的质量极其的差。不仅难读而且极其难懂。它可为那些"糟糕的书"做出了不小的贡献，因为那些作者无法通过这个标准文档来更深地理解这门语言。ECMA和TC39应该为此感到非常尴尬。
Most of the people writing in JavaScript are not programmers. They lack the training and discipline to write good programs. JavaScript has so much expressive power that they are able to do useful things in it, anyway. This has given JavaScript a reputation of being strictly for the amateurs, that it is not suitable for professional programming. This is simply not the case.
使用JavaScript的人大多不是程序员，他们缺少写良好程序的培训和训练。JavaScript有非常强大的表现力，不管怎样他们也能使用它做有用的事情。这给了JavaScript一个”全然适合业余爱好者而不适合专业程序员“的名声。这很明显是一个错误。
Is JavaScript object-oriented? It has objects which can contain data and methods that act upon that data. Objects can contain other objects. It does not have classes, but it does have constructors which do what classes do, including acting as containers for class variables and methods. It does not have class-oriented inheritance, but it does have prototype-oriented inheritance.