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

[Ric Johnson]

>Who, besides Doug Crockford, would be among those "several 
people"?
I believe some Dojo people were against the new ES4, and I did here two
people sitting next to me reflect that (sorry I do not know who they
were)

>I could not attend that conference (new baby in hospital still). 

Congrats.

>bad, because if I had, you would have heard another side to the
>story, and a vigorous debate, and then probably we wouldn't be
>playing this "how long have you been beating your wife?" game. Which
>I refuse to play.

Um... I am not accusing you or anyone. This is what was said at the TAE,
but not by me

>
>> 2) There was not consensus on the new features, but they are being
>> pushed
>> through anyway
>
>Did you read my message in response to the slashdot anonymous
>coverage of that TAE panel, sent to this list? Here's a link:
>
>https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es4-discuss/2007-October/001309.html

I did read it.  However, I do beleive Doug's quote was "half of the of
the working group did NOT agree, but it is being pushed through
anyway".  I wrote this down word for word at the time, but may have
attributed incorrectly.

>of being mentally dim. He called a press conference to deny the
>allegation, which did not help. I'm not that dumb, so I'm going to
>reject your question and ask you to justify its premise. If we don't
>share premises, there's no point arguing conclusions.

I never said you were dumb- quite the opposite, but I fail to see how
rejecting the question gets us anywhere.

>> Can anyone else comment HOW either party would benfit if this did
>> happen?
>
>Can you stop assuming your conclusion (Adobe/Mozilla conspiracy) for
>a minute and examine its premise (which can be addressed by looking
>at public materials on exactly who created ES4 as proposed in TG1)?

I have reviewed quite a few docs, although I may have missed more.  I
like ES4 and thank you for your hard work.  However, my question still
stands.

>> also can you comment on why there was more than AS3 added to the new
>> language?
>
>The rationales are summarized in the white paper (http://
>www.ecmascript.org/es4/spec/overview.pdf). Detailed rationales were
>originally given in the proposals namespace of http://
>wiki.ecmascript.org/. If you are curious about the detailed history
>of the design evolution, please read these proposal pages, and their
>linked discussion pages. We put these in the open so anyone can check
>our reasoning and see that there's no hidden agenda for ES4.
>
>
>These are two of several features not in AS3, but AS3 is hardly the
>ne plus ultra of JavaScript. So again I think your question is skewed
>toward Adobe. Opera contributed ideas and solutions based on its
>experience.

Upon review, I SHOULD become more informed before sticking my foot in it.
 Sorry.

>Frankly, I think you are approaching the claims that I've seen
>attributed to Doug Crockford at The Ajax Experience a bit
>credulously. Since I was not there to give the other side, or at
>least one other side, let's back up from taking Doug's claims as
>gospel truth and putting other groups on trial based on one person's
>statements.

You are correct sir:  I do respect Doug and thus lent weight to the
argument, but I also respect John Resig, who was at the conference. The
differing opinions is why we are having these discussions.

Thank you for taking the time to address these postings