douglas at crockford.com
Sun Oct 28 17:13:07 PDT 2007
Robert Sayre wrote:
> Fighting over the name is pointless. It's not a good name, and web
The name is exactly the point. A new language should have a new name. The deltas
from ES3 to the proposed language are larger than ES3 itself. Claims of backward
compatibility do not change the fact that there is more than enough new material
in the proposal to make it a new language.
But at this point in time I would resist standardizing the new language simply
because we do not have enough practical experience with it to know if it is good
enough to be worth standardizing. I can think of one instance in history when a
standards committee produced a good, new design, and that was a long time ago.
The current proposal is no Algol 60. It's not even an Algol 68.
of, as you say, not good names. I am in favor of making careful and modest
improvements to the language, correcting as much as possible the problems that
are most troublesome to actual usage.
As responsible stewards of the language, we should not be trying to transform
ECMAScript into something else. I don't care what you call your new strongly
More information about the Es4-discuss