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

liorean liorean at gmail.com
Sun Oct 28 19:01:09 PDT 2007

On 29/10/2007, Robert Sayre <sayrer at gmail.com> wrote:
>  * Temper tantrums about the name.
>    (there's really nothing to negotiate, aiui)

I can understand wanting to change the name for the reason Steve Yegge
mentions in "How to Ignore Marketing and Become Irrelevant in Two Easy
Steps" - Both JavaScript and ECMAScript are horrible names. On the
other hand they have a considerable mindshare and I think it would be
more confusing if the name was changed to something entirely unknown.

I don't buy the argument that ES4 shouldn't be named "ECMAScript 4" or
"JavaScript 2" because it's too big a a change to it's predecessor
however. ES4 has been developed specifically to be an update to
ECMAScript 3/JavaScript 1.x. As long as ES4 doesn't throw away
considerable parts of ES3 (which it doesn't) then I can't see how that
point is valid. The size of the "new" language compared to the size of
"old" language isn't important, what's important is the fact it's
pretty much entirely additional features that were lacking in the
predecessor or added orthogonal mechanisms that makes things possible
in the engine that were not possible before.
David "liorean" Andersson

More information about the Es4-discuss mailing list