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

Robert Sayre sayrer at gmail.com
Sun Oct 28 18:38:06 PDT 2007

On 10/28/07, Mark Miller <erights at gmail.com> wrote:
> However, Rebecca is related to the evil Allan of Microsoft, so perhaps
> responsibility based design is part of some evil corporate plot? Or
> maybe we should evaluate the logic of what people are saying
> independent of their corporate affiliation?

This reads like a flame to me. I think every message I've sent has
suggested, you know, pointing out technical flaws when you criticize a
proposal. In response, there have been

 * several messages conflating ES4 with various ungainly languages
  (no technical content)

 * claims that the committee couldn't possibly have come up with a
good proposal
  (no technical content)

 * claims that (optional) static typing and (optional) classes somehow
    represent some kind of "switch"
   (no technical content, some religious content)

 * claims that people (not me, I'm not on the committee) are acting
   (no technical content)

 * self-righteous grandstanding about the true nature of JavaScript
   (no technical content)

 * claims that everyone should implement before standardizing
   (already done).

 * Temper tantrums about the name.
   (there's really nothing to negotiate, aiui)

This is not a discussion. It is trash talk. And it looks like its aim
is to delay the work of others. Clear?

I understand that you want to explore more restrictive subsets, and
maybe some conservative extensions. That's great. I think you should
call it whatever you want, and it could work very well. Does ES4
redefine your subset? Doesn't seem so, except in a few corner cases
that are undeniable bugs in ES3. None of the scary new features are
involved. Why is this a problem?


Robert Sayre

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

More information about the Es4-discuss mailing list