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

Robert Sayre sayrer at gmail.com
Sun Oct 28 14:16:17 PDT 2007

On 10/28/07, Mark Miller <erights at gmail.com> wrote:
> But even if you have succeeded at integrating together more good ideas
> into a coherent language design than have many previous brilliant
> language designers, I have another concern: Standards bodies should
> not do de-novo design.

JS has evolved since IE6 was released. Many of the "new" features are
already available in ActionScript, Mozilla, Opera, and elsewhere. The
language design also relieves pressure on library designers, each of
whom must write essentially the same wrappers on core types, the same
type-checking routines, and on and on. Too much code that "fixes" the
language is being sent over the wire, and JavaScript or built-in
browser objects must continually evolve to avoid that. ES4 seems like
a much better base to push out innovation to libraries (notice you'll
find very little new "standard lib" stuff in ES4).

> The "convenient cover for conflicted business interests" comment is
> the sort of ad hominem nonsense that I hope we can avoid in further
> discussions.

Well, in principle I agree, and I think it is best to be avoid
discussing motivations when possible. In this case, your message is
just latest in series of "it's too ______", where the blank is some
subjective quality. This one is longer, with a calmer tone, but I
still don't see much substance. If the language is as radical and
complicated departure as you say it is, it should be easy to find bugs
in the design.


Robert Sayre

"I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time."

More information about the Es4-discuss mailing list