Prev: FAQ Topic - What are object models? (2010-03-21)
Next: Video: Ryan Dahl: Node.js
From: John G Harris on 27 May 2010 16:07
On Thu, 27 May 2010 at 20:49:35, in comp.lang.javascript, Thomas
'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>John G Harris wrote:
>
>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> John G Harris wrote:
>>>> No, what we want is a name to mean any or all of these languages without
>>>> having to give a long list of names, and without misusing a trade mark.
>>>
>>> "ECMAScript implementations"
>
>You want to mark omissions when quoting so as not to give a false impression
>of the quoted text.

You must be desperate for something to complain about.


>> 'ECMAScript implementations' is not suitable for two reasons.
>>
>> First, 'ECMAScript implementation' means a compiler,
>
>Not necessarily.

Here's a quote from a normative section of ECMA 262 :

"Conforming ECMAScript implementations are not required to perform any
normalisation of text," ...

It's typical of the use of the term ECMAScript implementation in the
standard. I challenge you to find an unambiguous example of contrary use
in the standard.

And here's a quote from the Wikipedia article on ECMAScript :

"Note that there is a distinction between a dialect and an
implementation. A dialect of a language is significant variation of the
language, while an implementation of a language/dialect executes a
program written in that dialect."

The author has come to the same conclusion.


>> not the language that it acts on.
>
>Wrong.

Look up 'implement' in a dictionary.


>> To see this, consider the words in section 6 of the ES3
>> & ES5 standards :
>> "Conforming ECMAScript implementations are not required to perform
>> any normalisation of text" ...
>
>The term appears to have adopted or always had a broader meaning, as you can
>readily see when visiting the implementors' Web sites.

It's the meaning in the standard that matters, not marketing-speak. Are
you subscribing to the VK/Jorge theory of specification reading ?


>> You need to propose a better term than that.
>
>I don't think so.

I do think so.

John
--
John Harris
From: John G Harris on 28 May 2010 11:12
On Fri, 28 May 2010 at 10:43:46, in comp.lang.javascript, Thomas
'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>John G Harris wrote:
>
>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> John G Harris wrote:
>>>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>>> John G Harris wrote:
>>>>>> No, what we want is a name to mean any or all of these languages
>>>>>> without having to give a long list of names, and without misusing a
>>>>>> trade mark.
>>>>> "ECMAScript implementations"
>>>
>>> You want to mark omissions when quoting so as not to give a false
>>> impression of the quoted text.
>>
>> You must be desperate for something to complain about.
>
>You must be stupid or a troll not to quote properly despite being notified.

To save you the embarrassment of you having to give a grovelling
apology, here is the text that you omitted from your article of 25 May
2010, 12:28:12, which you omitted without any marking at all :-

<begin omitted text>
>On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 at 10:17:59, in comp.lang.javascript, VK wrote:
>
> <snip>
>>OK, let's put it then in more straightforward way: "Krispy Kreme" is
>>called so because the company decided to call itself so. "ee cummings"
>>is because Mr. Cummings decided to call himself so. "JavaScript" is
>>because Netscape Corp. decided to call it so. "javascript" is called
>>so because a group of individuals, having no relation to the language
>>creation and holding no right on it decided to call it so and decided
>>to enforce this name usage on other people. Something doesn't add up
>>here...
> <snip>
>
>You haven't been paying attention.
<end omitted text>

I won't speculate on whether you are stupid or a troll, but I do wonder
where you thought anyone had been notified. (It's not in RFC 1855).


>>>> 'ECMAScript implementations' is not suitable for two reasons.
>>>>
>>>> First, 'ECMAScript implementation' means a compiler,
>>> Not necessarily.
>>
>> Here's a quote from a normative section of ECMA 262 :
>>
>> "Conforming ECMAScript implementations are not required to perform any
>> normalisation of text," ...
>
>Irrelevant.
>
>> It's typical of the use of the term ECMAScript implementation in the
>> standard. I challenge you to find an unambiguous example of contrary use
>> in the standard.
>
>Red herring.

So you say the standard is irrelevant and a red herring in this news
group.


>> And here's a quote from the Wikipedia article on ECMAScript :
>>
>> "Note that there is a distinction between a dialect and an
>> implementation. A dialect of a language is significant variation of the
>> language, while an implementation of a language/dialect executes a
>> program written in that dialect."
>>
>> The author has come to the same conclusion.
>
>Even Wikipedia can be wrong. In fact, as can be expected, Wikipedia is more
>often wrong in with regard to ECMAScript and its implementations than
>elsewhere. I would be not surprised if the author was Garrett Smith, who
>started this "dialect" nonsense here, IIRC.
>
>>>> not the language that it acts on.
>>> Wrong.
>>
>> Look up 'implement' in a dictionary.
>
>Look it up yourself.

"implement verb
to put a plan or system into operation"
[Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary, online]


>>>> To see this, consider the words in section 6 of the ES3
>>>> & ES5 standards :
>>>> "Conforming ECMAScript implementations are not required to perform
>>>> any normalisation of text" ...
>>>
>>> The term appears to have adopted or always had a broader meaning, as you
>>> can readily see when visiting the implementors' Web sites.
>>
>> It's the meaning in the standard that matters, not marketing-speak.
>
>It is not "marketing speak". It is a matter of fact in computer programming
>(which you would know had you any considerable experience in the field) that
>the name of a programming language designates both the syntactical and
>semantical rules of that programming language and the program that is able
>to implement them so that the result is an executable program. It is
>therefore appropriate to speak of a language itself as an implementation of
>a language standard.

That may be true in German but it is not true in the English-speaking
countries.

You obviously didn't know that standards bodies are very reluctant to
use the word Compiler because some people loudly object that the
'Compiler' does only part of the work. That's why 'the implementation'
is used instead, see many examples in the C++ and C# standards.

As an example of what people with considerable experience in the field
put into a standard here is an extract from section 4, Definitions, in
ECMA-334, the C# standard :

"Implementation - particular set of software (running in a particular
translation environment under particular control options) that performs
translation of programs for, and supports execution of methods in, a
particular execution environment."


<snip>

John
--
John Harris
From: John G Harris on 29 May 2010 10:45
On Sat, 29 May 2010 at 01:07:50, in comp.lang.javascript, Thomas
'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

<snip>
>I can only repeat: You have no clue what you are talking about.

Be careful. You're going to run out of rude words soon. Then what will
you do ?


>A
>programming language standard is _not_ to be understood only as a
>compiler specification.

A very disconnected thought : no-one said it was.


>EOD

End Of Discussion, indeed. You have failed to justify your case.

I win.

John
--
John Harris
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2
Prev: FAQ Topic - What are object models? (2010-03-21)
Next: Video: Ryan Dahl: Node.js