upvote
To be fair, prototypal inheritance is relatively uncommon language design. I'd rank it as considerably harder to understand than the % operator.
reply
That's a good point, it's only been around for 30 years, and used on 95% of websites. It's not really popular enough for a developer to take an hour or two to read how it works.
reply
The word "used" is doing some heavy lifting there. Not all usage is equal, and the fact that it's involved under the hood isn't enough to imply anything significant. Subatomic physics is used by 100% of websites and has been around for billions of years, but that's not a reason to expect every web developer to have a working knowledge of electron fields.
reply
Fair point.

Let's compromise and say that whoever is responsible for involving (javascript|electron fields) in the display of a website, should each understand their respective field.

I don't expect a physicist or even an electrical engineer or cpu designer to necessarily understand JavaScript. I don't expect a JavaScript developer to understand electron fields.

I do expect a developer who is writing JavaScript to understand JavaScript. Similarly I would expect the physicist/etc to understand how electrons work.

reply
The issue with this framing is that understanding something isn't a binary; you don't need to be an expert in every feature of a programming language to be able to write useful programs in it. The comment above describing prototypical inheritance as esoteric was making the point that you conflated the modulus operator with it as if they're equally easy to understand. Your responses don't seem to indicate you agree with this.

It sounds like you expect everyone to understand 100% of a language before they ever write any code in it, and that strikes me as silly; not everyone learns the same way, and some people learn better through practice than by reading about thinks without practice. People sometimes have the perception that anyone who prefers a different way of learning than them is just lazy or stupid for not being able to learn in the way that they happen to prefer, and I think that's both reductive and harmful.

reply