JavaScript 2015?

[Angus Croll]

Name names. Who's idea was this? :)

On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 4:53 PM, Axel Rauschmayer <axel at rauschma.de> wrote:

> That would be my preferred solution: the name affects book covers,
> domains, content, etc. = a significant amount of time and money.
>
> Even worse than renaming ES6 now would be renaming it later, though.
>
>
>
> On 23 Jan 2015, at 01:44, Arthur Stolyar <nekr.fabula at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Can we leave ES6 to ES6 because it's already here and call ES7 -- ES2016?
> Since ES7 not here yet and there are not much mentions of it.
>
> 2015-01-23 2:39 GMT+02:00 Brendan Eich <brendan at mozilla.org>:
>
>> Andrea Giammarchi wrote:
>>
>>> I particularly don't like the idea that things could be dropped or
>>> rushed last minute just because the new years eve is coming ... this feel
>>> like those stories with tight deadlines where management could easily fail
>>> due over-expectations on all possible 3rd parts alignment ( you know, like
>>> those 12 different JS engines out there .... + spartans )
>>>
>>
>> No last minute slips -- that's a schedule-chicken outcome (where the cars
>> do not collide but one veers and drives off a cliff!).
>>
>> The new stuff has to board its "release train" or its champions and fans
>> will be sad, and perhaps take a credibility hit. This doesn't mean larger
>> work must be broken down into too many pieces, but that is a risk.
>>
>> Larger work that can track across multiple years is always risky -- in my
>> experience it very often aims for a target near Alpha Centauri at sublight
>> speed, when the real action was over at Tau Ceti due to an FTL
>> breakthrough, but no one knew at first that (a) FTL was possible; or (b)
>> the Centauri systems were uninhabitable. If you get what I mean ;-).
>>
>> (Spartan uses Chakra, last I heard.)
>>
>> Mature projects can do rapid-er release more easily than young ones, for
>> sure. I recall 4.2BSD Unix, then 4.3, and a bit of 4.4.
>>
>>  I do like the idea of having more frequent rolling releases, but yet I
>>> don't know why year-naming would be the choice.
>>>
>>
>> Does the name matter? You seemed to be objecting on more substantive
>> grounds. Don't back off to mere quibbling about labels!
>>
>>  Anyway, please consider keeping ES6 exactly ES6, we will have time to
>>> align the ESX where X = previous ESX +2009 concept.
>>>
>>> to Doctor Alex, at this point I think you should really stick with ES6
>>> or avoid the ES at all and use JS 2015
>>>
>>
>> This reminds me: Axel (not Alex) cannot recommend "JavaScript 2015" to
>> anything near the Ecma standard, because trademark. :-/
>>
>> /be
>>
>
>
>
> --
> @nekrtemplar <https://twitter.com/nekrtemplar>
>
>
> --
> Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
> axel at rauschma.de
> rauschma.de
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20150122/3daa62c2/attachment.html>