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

Andrew Dupont andrew at andrewdupont.net
Sun Oct 28 20:26:13 PDT 2007

On Oct 28, 2007, at 9:01 PM, liorean wrote:

> 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 agree with all this. The comparison to C/C++ is fitting — both C++  
and ES4 add a giant glob of features onto an existing language. In C+ 
+'s case, the name conveys this succinctly, attaching to the C "brand"  
while also suggesting an evolution of some sort.

Those who think that incrementing the version number doesn't convey  
the extent of ECMAScript's evolution have a valid point. But — to  
liorean's point — both "JavaScript" and "ECMAScript" are horrible  
names that we're stuck with. There's no name, in my opinion, that  
would sufficiently detach itself from said awfulness without detaching  
from the brand (and thus the mindshare) an equal amount. I think  
"Smashing Pumpkins" is an awful name for a band, but they'd be mad to  
change it now.


More information about the Es4-discuss mailing list