zenparsing at gmail.com
Thu Jan 22 14:51:31 PST 2015
FWIW, here's the rule of thumb that I tend to use:
- When referring to a specific version of the language, it's ESx (e.g. ES5,
- When referring to the specification itself (e.g. in proposals), it's
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 4:07 PM, Axel Rauschmayer <axel at rauschma.de> wrote:
> I’m in the process of coming up with a good title for a book on ECMAScript
> 6. That begs the question: What is the best way to refer to ECMAScript 6?
> 1. The obvious choices: ECMAScript 6 or ES6.
> The advantage of #2 is that many people don’t know what ECMAScript 6 is.
> However, I’m worried that a book that has “2015” in its title will appear
> old in 2016. And the year scheme completely breaks with current tradition.
> I see two possibilities:
> would support that and name my book accordingly.
> ECMAScript 6 will recognize it, but it will also mean something to people
> who don’t know what ECMAScript is. Is 2015, 2016, … really that much better
> than 6, 7, 8, … ? Would skipped years pose a problem for the former naming
>  https://twitter.com/awbjs/status/558316031039381504
> Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
> axel at rauschma.de
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the es-discuss