tl;dr takeaway :
(tl;博士外卖 ：)
If you're looking for a very high standard for yourself or team, JSLint.
(如果你正在为自己或团队寻找一个非常高的标准，JSLint。)
But its not necessarily THE standard, just A standard, some of which comes to us dogmatically from a javascript god named Doug Crockford.(但它不一定是标准，只是一个标准，其中一些来自于一个名叫Doug Crockford的javascript神的教条。)
If you want to be a bit more flexible, or have some old pros on your team that don't buy into JSLint's opinions, or are going back and forth between JS and other C-family languages on a regular basis, try JSHint.(如果你想要更灵活，或者你的团队中有一些老东西没有购买JSLint的意见，或者定期在JS和其他C系列语言之间来回，请尝试使用JSHint。)
long version :
(长版 ：)
The reasoning behind the fork explains pretty well why JSHint exists:
(fork后面的原因解释了为什么JSHint存在：)
http://badassjs.com/post/3364925033/jshint-an-community-driven-fork-of-jslint http://anton.kovalyov.net/2011/02/20/why-i-forked-jslint-to-jshint/
(http://badassjs.com/post/3364925033/jshint-an-community-driven-fork-of-jslint http://anton.kovalyov.net/2011/02/20/why-i-forked-jslint-to -jshint /)
So I guess the idea is that it's "community-driven" rather than Crockford-driven.
(所以我想这个想法是它是“社区驱动的”而不是Crockford驱动的。)
In practicality, JSHint is generally a bit more lenient (or at least configurable or agnostic) on a few stylistic and minor syntactical "opinions" that JSLint is a stickler on.(实际上，JSHint通常对JSLint的一些风格和轻微的语法“意见”更加宽容（或至少可配置或不可知）。)
As an example, if you think both the A and B below are fine, or if you want to write code with one or more of the aspects of A that aren't available in B, JSHint is for you.
(例如，如果您认为下面的A和B都很好，或者如果您想编写具有A中一个或多个B方面的代码，则JSHint适合您。)
If you think B is the only correct option... JSLint.(如果你认为B是唯一正确的选择...... JSLint。)
I'm sure there are other differences, but this highlights a few.(我确信还有其他差异，但这突出了一些。)
A) Passes JSHint out of the box - fails JSLint
(A）开箱即用JSHint - JSLint失败)
(function() {
"use strict";
var x=0, y=2;
function add(val1, val2){
return val1 + val2;
}
var z;
for (var i=0; i<2; i++){
z = add(y, x+i);
}
})();
B) Passes Both JSHint and JSLint
(B）传递JSHint和JSLint)
(function () {
"use strict";
var x = 0, y = 2, i, z;
function add(val1, val2) {
return val1 + val2;
}
for (i = 0; i < 2; i += 1) {
z = add(y, x + i);
}
}());
Personally I find JSLint code very nice to look at, and the only hard features of it that I disagree with are its hatred of more than one var declaration in a function and of for-loop var i = 0 declarations , and some of the whitespace enforcements for function declarations.
(就个人而言，我发现JSLint代码非常好看，而且我不同意它的唯一硬性特征是它在函数和for-loop var i = 0声明中的多个var声明的仇恨 ，以及一些空白功能声明的强制执行。)
A few of the whitespace things that JSLint enforces, I find to be not necessarily bad, but out of sync with some pretty standard whitespace conventions for other languages in the family (C, Java, Python, etc...), which are often followed as conventions in Javascript as well.
(JSLint强制执行的一些空白内容，我发现不一定是坏的，但是与家庭中其他语言（C，Java，Python等等）的一些非常标准的空白约定不同步，这通常是也遵循Javascript中的约定。)
Since I'm writing in various of these languages throughout the day, and working with team members who don't like Lint-style whitespace in our code, I find JSHint to be a good balance.(由于我一整天都在用各种语言写作，并且在我们的代码中与不喜欢Lint风格的空白的团队成员合作，我发现JSHint是一个很好的平衡点。)
It catches stuff that's a legitimate bug or really bad form, but doesn't bark at me like JSLint does (sometimes, in ways I can't disable) for the stylistic opinions or syntactic nitpicks that I don't care for.(它捕捉的是一个合法的错误或非常糟糕的形式的东西，但不会像JSLint那样咆哮我（有时候，我无法禁用）对于我不关心的风格观点或句法挑剔。)
A lot of good libraries aren't Lint'able, which to me demonstrates that there's some truth to the idea that some of JSLint is simply just about pushing 1 version of "good code" (which is, indeed, good code).
(很多好的库都不是Lint'able，这对我来说证明了一些JSLint只是推送1版“好代码”（这确实是好代码）的想法。)
But then again, the same libraries (or other good ones) probably aren't Hint'able either, so, touché.(但话说回来，相同的图书馆（或其他好的图书馆）可能也不是暗示，所以，触摸。)
