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

Ric Johnson Cedric at OpenDomain.Org
Mon Oct 29 15:05:35 PDT 2007

>Who, besides Doug Crockford, would be among those "several 
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

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


>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:

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

>> 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

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

>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

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

More information about the Es4-discuss mailing list