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

Chris Pine chrispi at opera.com
Tue Oct 30 07:51:48 PDT 2007

zwetan wrote:
> so sorry I don't buy the "ECMAScript must change its name"

No, of course not.  Nevermind that the scope of TG1 is "to standardize 
the syntax and semantics of a general purpose, cross platform, 
vendor-neutral dynamic scripting language called ECMAScript":


I don't think that anyone believes there is honest concern that the name 
of the language might confuse people about which language they are 
getting.  ES3 programs will continue to work.

The push to change the name is a push to kill the ES4 proposal.  It's 
that simple.

First you change the name.  Then you admit it's a new language, and thus 
a new spec.  Incompatibilities with ES3 inevitably follow, in order to 
incompatibly fix bugs (something we'd all like to do, but not at the 
expense of breaking the web).  Browser vendors must then ship two 
runtimes to support the new language (impossible on small devices), 
while no work is required to truthfully claim "our browser has full 
ecmascript support".  So small devices don't get it, IE doesn't do it, 
and ES4 as proposed dies.

So I don't buy it either:  I don't believe that anyone arguing to change 
the name thinks the language would thus succeed.  This rose, by any 
other name, would not be smelled at all.

Chris Pine
Opera Software

More information about the Es4-discuss mailing list