Renaming ECMAScript 4 for the final standard?

Brendan Eich brendan at
Sun Mar 23 23:28:10 PDT 2008

On Mar 23, 2008, at 8:08 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:

> 2008/3/23 Lemonade Smith <lemonadesmith at>:
>> The proposed ECMAScript 4 standard contains very different  
>> paradigms to the
>> current JavaScript/ECMAScript standard. In my view, it is the  
>> equivalent of
>> the changes between C and C++ - it's designed largely to be a  
>> revolution
>> rather than a mere evolution of the current ECMAScript/JavaScript  
>> standard.

(Don't feed the trolls.)

> Further, by separating these efforts into separately named language
> efforts, those who favor large statically typed languages

ES4 is not statically typed, so...

> and those
> who favor small dynamic languages can self select into distinct
> efforts.

... this is a false dilemma.

> The separate existence of C++ probably helped preserve the
> smallness of C for many years. Likewise, Common Lisp probably helped
> protect the smallness of Scheme. Both battles were ultimately lost,
> but defending these languages from featuritis for a few more decades
> was nothing to sneeze at.

These analogies are weak and tendentious in my opinion. Let's try to  
get back to premises and argue forward. Can we start with why you  
seem to believe that ES4 is statically typed?


More information about the Es4-discuss mailing list