[TLUG]: ECMAScript ("Javascript") Version 4 - FALSE ALARM

Jeff Dyer jodyer at adobe.com
Sat Oct 27 10:58:06 PDT 2007

I've responded briefly to the slashdot posting. Bottom line is that the
majority of the participants are working in the open to finish a set of
language proposals that largely originated in 1999 at Netscape. It is not
new and there should be few surprises to those, including Microsoft, who
have participated in TG1 since then.

Opposing members from two companies have made general claims along the lines
that "it is too different to be called the same language" and "it will
destabilize the web". Both arguments have been refuted in detail, in private
and public (e.g. http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/2504). And we have yet
to hear similarly detailed or convincing response from those 'minimalists'.
That could be because their motives have more to do with specific business
concerns, rather than broad technical concerns. I guess we won't know until
they come out and say it.


On 10/27/07 8:00 AM, Scott Elcomb wrote:

> Hi all,
> First off, I'd like to say thanks for all the good questions and
> answers from folks on the list.  I haven't been here long, but have
> already learned a bunch.  Looking forward to ES4.
> Anyway, I received this post* this morning in response to a notice I
> sent along about the ES4 overview.  I'm not sure what to make of the
> story...
> Any comments or clarifications?
> * http://article.gmane.org/gmane.org.user-groups.linux.tolug/36420
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Walter Dnes <waltdnes at waltdnes.org>
> Date: Oct 27, 2007 3:44 AM
> Subject: Re: [TLUG]: ECMAScript ("Javascript") Version 4 - FALSE ALARM
> To: tlug at ss.org
> On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 04:04:52PM -0400, Scott Elcomb wrote
>> An official overview[1] of "Javascript 2.0" was released today.
>> It will likely be some months (at least) for this version of the
>> language to show up in web browsers, but it might be a good idea to
>> get on-board early.
>   Not so fast.  See the note on Slashdot Firehose at
> http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&id=350409
>   Since it's not too long, I'll quote it in its entirety...
>> "At The Ajax Experience conference, it was announced that an
>> ECMAScript4 white paper had been released. The implication being
>> that the white paper was the upcoming spec, which is untrue. Not to
>> mention this is not an official ECMA site, but a site run by only
>> some of the members from the ECMAScript4 group. These facts were
>> later revealed by another concerned ECMAScript4 member. He encouraged
>> any interested parties to read the proposed feature white paper, join
>> the discussion mailing list on that site, and share your opinions
>> for (or against) the desired features. This seems a little `cloak
>> and dagger` of those running the site, who desire serious changes
>> and are unfortunately Mozilla, Adobe, and others. The concerned
>> individual suggested that they simply create a new language with a
>> new name, as there are that many fundamental differences. Many of
>> us are very concerned that the language we love is being rewritten
>> under our feet."
> --
> Walter Dnes <waltdnes at waltdnes.org> In linux /sbin/init is Job #1
> Q. Mr. Ghandi, what do you think of Microsoft security?
> A. I think it would be a good idea.
> --
> The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://gtalug.org/
> TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
> How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://gtalug.org/wiki/Mailing_lists

More information about the Es4-discuss mailing list