Sorry its really not intended to be a personal attack and i regret the wording.

To clarify what I was trying to convey, the issue I personally find is that JS errors often produce difficult to understand descriptions and misleading traces when compared to some alternative languages.

I do believe that there is good work being done to convert these errors into more usable alternatives. Just recently I caught a glimpse of this: https://plus.google.com/+AddyOsmani/posts/DdWkiKsvbA2

Segmentation faults can also be very cryptic, especially in the memory related cases like you suggested, but its likely that any tool would behave in fairly unpredictable ways when it comes to any form of corruption or out of memory scenario.

Sorry again and hopefully that clarifies my thoughts.

Correct, however given that any addition to the plane has the potential to cause unintended conflicts with critical systems (i.e. in the downed Swissair flight 111 example I gave in another comment) I was suggesting that these should still be treated just as seriously.

Don't get me wrong though, I don't think that using JS in a plane is a bad idea. In fact I think the aviation industry is extremely slow moving and it frustrates me, fortunately the experimental category has access to some interesting tools but for certified aircraft you're very restricted in what you can and cannot do to modify the aircraft.

Yes you're right they do provide a trace, however the trace can be misleading and difficult to understand. I attempted to clarify my position in the comments above. Sorry for any offence I caused.