Odd idea

[Brendan Eich]

On May 17, 2008, at 7:37 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:

> it occurred to me that it's not yet too late to end the madness. How
> about if we align the next JavaScript version numbers with their
> Ecmascript equivalents:
>
> How about if the JavaScript version corresponding to ES4 is JavaScript
> 4?

There's only some small amount of madness (or irritation, really) in  
either course. No one is seriously confused by JS2 being a successor  
to JS1.x, but some would find the jump over missing 2.x and 3.0 odd  
(see below on more problems for a JS3.1). The current plan leaves  
those preferring ES to JS with the chore of doubling or halving, but  
really: if you prefer ES just use it and don't bother with JS numbers.

The versioning proposal is not trying to rewrite history or over- 
engineer version lines, just avoid any "JS2 > ES4" doubt (which was a  
certainty in the original vision, see Waldemar's docs sent to es4- 
discuss last month).


> This also addresses the otherwise nasty issue of what the
> JavaScript numbering should be for ES3.1. Let's call that JavaScript
> 3.1 as well.

No, we want a number line that goes up sensibly. JS3.1 if it follows  
1.7 would have everything on board for ES3.1 + other stuff not in ES3  
that prefigures ES4.

/be