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

Yehuda Katz wycats at gmail.com
Mon Oct 29 15:20:43 PDT 2007

On 10/29/07, Ric Johnson <Cedric at opendomain.org> wrote:
> >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 spoke to a bunch of Dojo guys, and while they have concern about specific
implementation details, I did not get the sense at all that they were
against the direction of ES4.

>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

It's what Crockford said at TAE, and his comments, while incredibly well
parsed to avoid outright lying, were incredibly misleading.

> >> 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.

Right. He avoided lying. However, he did say that Microsoft and Yahoo! were
against, while Mozilla and Adobe were for, giving the strong impression of a
split committee.

>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.

Buying into opposition frames is a great way to get trampled. I'm pretty new
to this whole conversation, but accepting the basic frame that Doug outlined
is just playing directly into the FUD.

>> 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.

I commented on this in a previous thread. Forward-looking browser-vendors
have everything to gain by pushing the state of the art. Crockford himself,
at TAE, said that failure to innovate in the browser space will kill the
open web in favor of proprietary solutions like AIR.

>> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Es4-discuss mailing list
> Es4-discuss at mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es4-discuss

Yehuda Katz
Web Developer | Procore Technologies
(ph)  718.877.1325
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20071029/a0b4434f/attachment-0002.html 

More information about the Es4-discuss mailing list