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

Thomas Reilly treilly at adobe.com
Tue Oct 30 06:25:16 PDT 2007

Okay, good to air things out I suppose.  If we wanted to use Tamarin as leverage to keep ES4 as close to AS3 as possible we're extremely incompetent (as evidenced by ES4's progress beyond AS3).  Luckily, we have some competencies.  Tamarin was well designed and shouldn't have to change too much but the compiler guys will have their hands full! 

Hopefully the end result of all this is folks that should be participating in ES4's development and aren't start to.  Better late than never I suppose, although if my ES4 spec isn't printed out and heavily dog eared by XMas 08 I might have to sucker punch Santa.  Having personally had my ideas sandbagged by committees (all hail J2EE) I'm cheering TG1 to the finish line with or without additional participation.  It should be noted I don't directly particpate in TG1, I'm just a well informed cheerleader.  Hopefully ES4 will start getting some more and more positive cheerleading in the blogosphere.

Its funny to hear this don't break the web stuff, its exactly the conversation that dominates every release of flash since one player runs all swf versions.   We routinely surprise ourselves with our ability to make sweeping changes to things and maintain backwards compatibility and I'm confident TG1 can do the same with ecmascript (and mozilla with its implementation).  I'm confident b/c as the stewards for Tamarin we'll be helping directly.

Regrettably we didn't have time to do what Brendan aims to do (run all script versions on one VM) but we knew it was possible and a good idea.  Its still sits pretty prominently on the shelf of un-realized pet projects.  Really you probably just want to keep the compiler separate I think. 

Anyways, the main point is that if anyone starts fear-mongering about breaking the web they are probably either incompetent or have ulterior motives (or both).   Hopefully the sticker shock of the "its too big" reaction will be fleeting once folks realize there's measured reason and precedent behind the grab bag of features that the overview lays out.  

-----Original Message-----
From: es4-discuss-bounces at mozilla.org on behalf of Neil Mix
Sent: Mon 10/29/2007 3:06 PM
To: Thomas Reilly
Cc: Dave Herman; es4-discuss at mozilla.org; Ric Johnson
Subject: Re: [TLUG]: ECMAScript ("Javascript") Version 4 - FALSE ALARM

> What would Adobe and Mozilla possibly have to make a "deal"  
> concerning?
> Its probably the case that the head decision makers of Mozilla and the
> head decision makers at Adobe have never met each other, much less  
> made
> a "deal".

I'll play devil's advocate for a moment, and say "Tamarin".  It goes  
like this: someone claims Adobe and Mozilla are in cahoots, and that  
triggers the memory that Adobe open-sourced its AS engine to Mozilla,  
and then the wheels start turning.  It's a lazy thought process, of  
course, because what's really gained?  Did they team up to make sure  
the spec results in as little modification to Tamarin as possible?   
So they're teaming up out of laziness?  I don't get it either, but  
you asked.

Es4-discuss mailing list
Es4-discuss at mozilla.org

More information about the Es4-discuss mailing list