Process of proposing targeted deconstruction

John Gardner gardnerjohng at gmail.com
Wed Jun 1 14:58:13 UTC 2016


Wrong comparison. "Harmony" was more or less an umbrella term for any
version of ECMAScript released after the non-existent version 4, which I'm
sure remains a subject of cryptozoology in some circles.

*I think it's just a matter of time for people to realise that an offset of
> `year – 2009` has the potential to be confusing in the long run.*


Uhm. I think your manner of recollecting releases is very different to
mine...

*If mankind still exists in the year 4024, the names will clash*


In 4024, there'll only be one programming language, which is JavaScript.
Everything else, including C, will be redundant. The HTML specification
will have been renamed "Bootstrap", and people who write CSS will face the
same opprobrium reserved for people who only write in Assembly. Grunt and
Gulp will have finally been merged into Grulpt, and Node will have
blossomed into an operating system.

The future is bleak and I'll be glad to be dead.

On 2 June 2016 at 00:47, kdex <kdex at kdex.de> wrote:

> I could swear that I've read that one intent was to release an updated ES
> standard yearly, so in theory, even the smaller indexes should change just
> as often as the years on a calendar. :p
> The majority should already have broken the habit calling it "harmony", so
> it's not like we haven't been there before.
>
> I think it's just a matter of time for people to realize that an offset of
> `year – 2009` has the potential to be confusing in the long run.
> (Maybe worth mentioning: If mankind still exists in the year 4024, the
> names will clash :p)
>
> On Mittwoch, 1. Juni 2016 10:17:42 CEST Caitlin Potter wrote:
> > Honestly, I don’t think so — Colloquially, it’s just easier to deal with
> small indexes vs dates/years. They’re shorter, they don’t change as often
> (in theory). It’s a hard habit to break for most people.
> >
> > > On Jun 1, 2016, at 10:09 AM, kdex <kdex at kdex.de> wrote:
> > >
> > > @caitlin Good find, but this directory name was presumably only given
> to match the naming scheme of [1] and [2].
> > > Somebody should probably do the work and rename them all.
> > >
> > > @leo: The Chrome Platform Status page [3] also mentions "ES8".
> > >
> > > [1] https://chromium.googlesource.com/v8/v8/+/master/test/mjsunit/es6/
> > > [2] https://chromium.googlesource.com/v8/v8/+/master/test/mjsunit/es7
> > > [3] https://www.chromestatus.com/features/5644533144485888
> > >
> > > On Mittwoch, 1. Juni 2016 10:01:18 CEST Caitlin Potter wrote:
> > >> Oh sure you have,
> > >>
> > >> https://chromium.googlesource.com/v8/v8/+/master/test/mjsunit/es8/ <
> https://chromium.googlesource.com/v8/v8/+/master/test/mjsunit/es8/> for
> instance :p
> > >>
> > >>> On Jun 1, 2016, at 9:59 AM, Leo Balter <leonardo.balter at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> I haven't seen anyone referring to ES2017 as ES8, so I imagine we
> won't have this problem anymore in a couple years. In anyway, this is an
> addition that won't happen to ES2016, it's too late for that.
> > >>>
> > >>> On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 9:36 AM, John Gardner <gardnerjohng at gmail.com
> <mailto:gardnerjohng at gmail.com>> wrote:
> > >>>> There is no such thing as ES7.
> > >>>
> > >>> You say that as though you can control how people index language
> versions in their minds...
> > >>>
> > >>> On 1 June 2016 at 23:33, Mark S. Miller <erights at google.com <mailto:
> erights at google.com>> wrote:
> > >>> ES2015 was the last version for which the short for ("ES6") was also
> in common use. After that, there is only ES2016 etc. There is no such thing
> as ES7.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 3:03 PM, John Gardner <gardnerjohng at gmail.com
> <mailto:gardnerjohng at gmail.com>> wrote:
> > >>> I'd like to propose a simple yet potent syntax addition <
> https://esdiscuss.org/topic/constructing-objects-from-named-identifiers>
> for /ECMAScript\d+/. What's the most direct approach to get this officially
> considered? I've seen differing procedures mentioned in places and I'm
> unsure.
> > >>>
> > >>> BTW, am I the only one getting confused by the year-based naming
> convention? I skip over intermediate letters when reading and only absorb
> the last digit, which makes me mistake ES2017 as ES7, which is actually
> ES2016, which I get mixed up with ES6, which is ES2015.
> > >>>
> > >>> _______________________________________________
> > >>> es-discuss mailing list
> > >>> es-discuss at mozilla.org <mailto:es-discuss at mozilla.org>
> > >>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss <
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> --
> > >>>    Cheers,
> > >>>    --MarkM
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> _______________________________________________
> > >>> es-discuss mailing list
> > >>> es-discuss at mozilla.org <mailto:es-discuss at mozilla.org>
> > >>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss <
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> _______________________________________________
> > >>> 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/20160602/cfcea561/attachment.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list