Odd idea

[Mark S. Miller]

On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 4:42 PM, Brendan Eich <brendan at mozilla.org> wrote:
> On May 19, 2008, at 4:22 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
>> But ES4 is also sideways in this sense. There's a bunch of stuff in
>> Mozilla's JS1.8 that didn't make it into ES4.
>
> Namely? As noted, some pieces are prototypes that will be adjusted to match
> the ES4 type-based counterpart (the iteration protocol hook, e.g.). What
> bunch of stuff is in 1.8 that did not make it into the latest ES4 drafts?

Ok, I looked, and it's a lot less than I expected. "watch" is an
example. (Unless I didn't notice its inclusion).

So, yes, you're right. ES4 is a successor to JS1.8.


>> Also, there's a tremendous amount of stuff in ES4 that was never in a
>> JavaScript.
>
> Except under the hood, off limits to programmers, reserved for the built-ins
> and the DOM.

Huh? Classes, Type declarations, Namespaces!, perhaps Packages and/or
Units, if these are still on the table.

Namespaces is a huge addition to the complexity of the language, and
the one I'm least happy about.


>> Glad to hear it's decimal. (Or at least binary floating point ;).) If
>> ES4 does become known as JS2, then, taking up the "doubling"
>> suggestion liorean mentioned, I suggest ES3.1 also be known as JS1.55.
>> Its successor could then be JS1.57, etc...
>
> I'm going to risk missing the joke

To avoid running into ES4, successors to ES3.1 will be ES3.14,
ES3.141, ..., approaching ESpi. (Thanks Donald Knuth for the idea)

> and repeat that we wouldn't fold any 3.1 into a distinct *JS* version number.

Ok then, I'm happy to stop arguing about this. I just thought that
this odd idea might be seen as helpful. If not, forget it. We have
enough substantive issues to argue about ;).

-- 
    Cheers,
    --MarkM