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

[Robert Sayre]

On 10/28/07, Mark Miller <erights at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > * Temper tantrums about the name.
> >   (there's really nothing to negotiate, aiui)
>
> I don't understand your point. Both positions:
> * advocating that the name stay the same
> * advocating that the name be changed
> cannot be resolved by technical arguments. The issue isn't technical.
> When you say "there's really nothing to negotiate", I'm not sure what
> you mean. Are you suggesting that we avoid deciding the name for the
> new language, and confine ourselves instead to deciding only its
> technical content?

Yes, but it's also not a good way to participate in any standards
group. Here's the web page:

http://www.ecma-international.org/memento/TC39-TG1.htm

Bullet points #1 and #2 pretty clearly state that the product is
ECMAScript. I'm not an expert on the ECMA process, but I don't think
some dissent concerning new features should require revisiting the
name of the standard produced. Check out the attendees and minutes for
July 27, *2006* on this page:

http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=meetings:meetings

And let's be clear, this example works in ES4:

~/Desktop/es4> ./es4
>> function X() { this.foo = "bar"}
>> X.prototype = {"baz":"qux"}
[object Object]
>> function Y() { this.bop = "wibble" }
>> Y.prototype = new X()
[object Object]
>> var z = new Y()
>> z.bop
wibble
>> z.foo
bar
>> z.baz
qux

No static typing, no classes. The ES4 additions are closer to Bigloo
Scheme or something like that [1,2]. There if you need them, harmless
if you don't.

> In any case, I agree that we can at least postpone
> these non-technical issues for now.

Yep, works for me.

1.) http://pauillac.inria.fr/cdrom/www/bigloo/manual/bigloo-15.html
2.) http://pauillac.inria.fr/cdrom/www/bigloo/manual/bigloo-7.html#container1654

-- 

Robert Sayre

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