Some of the implementations in JS went wrong, but fundamentally it really doesn't have anything horrible going on for what it's meant to do.
Unfortunately some of the implementation details do allow for seriously horrible code and some seriously horrible traps. But if you can clear the fog, and use "the good parts", it's actually pretty nice.
As for the article, I think it's very well written and seems to have a good overview of the language. Also, the author seems to have an above average experience level in an above average number of programming languages (guessing here), so it might be worth a read.
I am not talking about any APIs in JS or any "implentation in JS". JS, the language, as specified, is wrong at the core. It has a lot of insensible semantics. It's not even at a local maximum. I could just write a list of 10 changes to the language right now that would spur near-unanimous agreement of benefit with no downside.
I'm not talking about api's either. I'm talking about js as an implementation of ideas about what a language should do. It is built on a lot of great ideas and most are well implemented.
Since you aren't providing your sure-win idea changes, I can't be sure what you don't like but I can guess. All of them are well documented at this point. And they are easy to understand and avoid.
Unfortunately some of the implementation details do allow for seriously horrible code and some seriously horrible traps. But if you can clear the fog, and use "the good parts", it's actually pretty nice.
As for the article, I think it's very well written and seems to have a good overview of the language. Also, the author seems to have an above average experience level in an above average number of programming languages (guessing here), so it might be worth a read.