Process of proposing targeted deconstruction
fatalis.erratum at gmail.com
Wed Jun 1 15:18:01 UTC 2016
It's wishful thinking to say that ES7 isn't in common use; there's not much
reason for it to be less common than ES6. ES2016 still has the same
problems as ES2015: 6 characters means it barely counts as an abbreviation;
bigger numbers are not good for humans; the last digit being off by one
from the edition number is naturally confusing, and there isn't even a
particularly good reason for the new name to exist, because it just
communicates the release schedule. The previously established nomenclature
also isn't going away because ES3 and ES5 are still officially called that.
ES2016 will keep being referred to as "ES2016 (ES7)", because that's the
easiest way to explain how it fits into the release history, and it'll stay
reminder of the hubris of a technical committee dabbling in marketing.
On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 4:33 PM, Mark S. Miller <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
> On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 3:03 PM, John Gardner <gardnerjohng at gmail.com>
>> I'd like to propose a simple yet potent syntax addition
>> 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
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the es-discuss