Prev: Auto Form Submission
Next: FAQ Topic - Why does 1+1 equal 11? or How do I convert a string to a number? (2010-02-01)
From: kangax on 2 Feb 2010 01:41
On 2/2/10 1:12 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> kangax wrote:
>
>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> RobG wrote:
>> [...]
>>>> | This could be attributed to the slow progress of JavaScript
>>>> | through the standards bodies.
>>>>
>>>> But there is no standard for JavaScript, it's just a trade mark.
>>>
>>> The language standard for JavaScript is ECMAScript. That holds true
>>> whether we adopt your position that this entry should also be about
>>> other implementations of ECMAScript or not.
>>>
>>>> There are standards for ECMAScript
>>>
>>> Nonsense. ECMAScript *is* (the name of) the standard.
>>
>> Not exactly.
>>
>> The name of the standard is *ECMA-262*, not ECMAScript. ECMAScript is a
>> name of the *language* (defined by ECMA-262 standard).
>
> You are mistaken. ECMA-262 is _not_ the name, it is merely the original
> registry number.

ECMA clearly states that standard is called "ECMA-262". On the download
page (with the link to publication):

Standard ECMA-262
ECMAScript Language Specification

<http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-262.htm>

In the actual document, the term "Ecma standard" is used most often,
although there's also one occurrence of "ECMAScript standard".

Another registry number for the standard of the same name
> is ISO/IEC 16262:2002.

Where does it say that the standard with ISO/IEC 16262:2002 registry
number is called "ECMAScript standard"?

[...]

--
kangax
From: RobG on 2 Feb 2010 02:32
On Feb 2, 4:01 pm, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedE...(a)web.de>
wrote:
> RobG wrote:
> > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
[...]
> >> The term "javascript" is the invention of a wannabe here that failed to
> >> see the differences between the many implementations, and fell into
> >> common use because of other wannabes here that failed to or did not want
> >> to see them.
>
> > Regardless of its heritage, it is by far the most popular general term
> > for the various ECMAScript implementations. If agreement could have
> > been reached to use Netscape's trademark for the standard, it would be
> > called JavaScript.
[...]
> However, it is a mistake to use one term for all the implementations that
> does not make it obvious that several languages are being discussed (by
> contrast to, e.g. "ECMAScript implementation*s*").

You can rail against the tide of opinion all you like, but
"javascript" is the generic term used for the various ECMAScript
implementations in browsers at least, and several other environments
as well. The FAQ seems to agree:

"1.2 What questions are on-topic for comp.lang.javascript?
"The comp.lang.javascript newsgroup deals with ECMAScript languages,
so any questions about JavaScript or JScript are welcome. However, the
majority of questions sent to this group relates to javascript in a
web browser."

The name of this group infers it.


> AISB, "javascript"
> promotes the common misconception of the one scripting language where there
> are in fact several, different ones that need to be considered when writing
> especially client-side script code (not considering non-ECMAScript-
> compliant ones, of course).

Which is why a general definition of JavaScript should note the
difference between the generic term, the trademark and the
implementation.



> >> > | (Formerly "LiveScript") Netscape's simple,
>
> >> > What are the criteria for "simple"? If the criterion is features
> >> > provided by the base language, then ECAMScript is more complex than C,
> >> > but C is not described as simple.
> >> Perhaps simple as compared to Java, because that was the intention for
> >> creating it.
>
> > So you agree that some criterion for "simple" should be included in
> > the statement.
>
> No.

So when you wrote "Perhaps simple as compared to Java" you seem to
think a qualification was necessary. It was clearly an intention of
Brendan Eich to make JavaScript a simple language to use, but to state
that without qualification can easily give the impression that it is
also not suitable for anything other than simple tasks.

[...]
> >> > | World-Wide Web scripting language, only very vaguely
> >> > | related to Java
>
> >> > It isn't related to Java at all, at least not any more than it's
> >> > related to say C.
>
> >> Incorrect.  JavaScript™ was designed to be a Java-like scripting
> >> language;
>
> > I don't think Java had much influence on JavaScript at all.
>
> Of course not.  You misunderstand.
>
> > From the quotes I've seen from Brendan Eich, the link with Java was just
> > chance.
>
> Read again.

Perhaps if you just write slower and louder I'll come around to your
point of view.


> > Netscape were developing a simple scripting language for
> > browsers. Java was released at about the same time (1995) as he was
> > working on Mocha, which became LiveScript and then JavaScript in the
> > space of about 6 months.
>
> > Changing the name and linking it to Java was mostly a marketing
> > exercise when Netscape teamed up with Sun to leverage the hype
> > surrounding Java[1], so I don't think there was a specific intention
> > to be "Java-like".
>
> Regardless what you think, that is what it was.  The name and syntax was
> _not_ chosen by mere coincidence, nor is the statement of "Java-like" there
> in the Specification since ECMAScript Edition 1 by mere chance.

The ECMAScript spec was long after the original development of
JavaScript and continued the name association with Java (for whatever
reason). The term "Java-like" is better though than "vaguely related
to Java".


> > [...]
> >> > | (which is a Sun trademark).
> >> > So is JavaScript.
> >> And that does not make you think?
>
> > That JavaScript is simplified Java? No.  [...]
>
> Then you are a fool.

Maybe, but not because you say so.

Brendan Eich stated (in the article I linked to):

"And then in early December, Netscape and Sun did a license agreement
and it became JavaScript. And the idea was to make it a complementary
scripting language to go with Java, with the compiled language"

There you have it - JavaScript was intended (at that time) to be
*complementary* to Java. The idea was that Java plugins would do the
heavy client-side stuff and JavaScript the light stuff. JavaScript was
developed independently of Java and its name changed as a marketing
tactic. One that has backfired to some extent as for a long time
JavaScript was seen as a dumbed-down version of Java. It isn't, it
never was and was never intended to be.


> > And the article doesn't mention that JavaScript is a Sun trademark.
>
> So what?

Because a complete definition of "JavaScript" should do that.


> >> > | JavaScript is intimately tied to the World-Wide Web,
>
> >> > More correctly, it is used most commonly for scripting in browsers on
> >> > the World Wide Web.
>
> >> If you adopt the position that this dictionary entry should not only
> >> describe JavaScript™, but also JScript aso.,
>
> > I don't.
>
> Yes, you do.

No, I don't.

> This dictionary entry is specifically about JavaScript™,

Is it? The trademark isn't mentioned anywhere, and you're the one who
can't see a reason to include it. Now you claim the article is
specifically about a Netscape (now Mozilla) implementation of
ECMAScript.

Perhaps *you* should provide a concise definition of your use of the
terms "JavaScript" and "JavaScript™". It's becoming less clear to me.


> yet
> you by your own account you want it to contain more elaborate descriptions
> about this "javascript" fantasy, JScript, ActionScript aso.

I've explained that "fantasy" and its relevance to the article. It's
over to the OP now.


> That does not
> belong there, it belongs in the entries about "javascript", JScript, and
> ActionScript aso., if that.

So you think the article should constrain itself to JavaScript™ only?
But not mention the trademark?


> >> you have to take into account
> >> that there is Server-Side JavaScript on NES-compatible servers, and
> >> Service-side JScript (.NET) in ASP (.NET).
>
> > Yes, but those uses are far less common than the use in browsers.
>
> Stop making assumptions, show some facts for a change.

I think it's a pretty reasonable assumption. There are hundreds of
millions of browsers in daily use. How many server-side JavaScript
applications do you know of?


> Your assumptions
> do not belong any more in that entry than the original author's about JS
> speed.
>
> >> Therefore, the statement above is correct, and your "more correct"
> >> version is in fact "less correct".
>
> > No, it's not. You seem to have missed the phrase "used most commonly",
> > or misread it as "used exclusively".
>
> No, I didn't.

So you think server-side uses of JavaScript are more common that
client-side uses? Where's *your* proof?


> >> > | and currently runs in only three environments
>
> >> > If you are talking specifically about JavaScript(tm), perhaps.
>
> >> You do know what a dictionary is, don't you?
>
> > I don't understand your point.
>
> This entry is about JavaScript, not about any delusions of "javascript".

You seem to be deliberatly obtuse. I can't decide whether you think
this article is about JavaScript™ or the generic term JavaScript. If
the assertion that either JavaScript™ or JavaScript runs in only the 3
enviroments mentioned, it is wrong.


--
Rob
From: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn on 2 Feb 2010 09:40
kangax wrote:

> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> kangax wrote:
>>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>> RobG wrote:
>>>>> There are standards for ECMAScript
>>>> Nonsense. ECMAScript *is* (the name of) the standard.
>>> Not exactly.
>>>
>>> The name of the standard is *ECMA-262*, not ECMAScript. ECMAScript is a
>>> name of the *language* (defined by ECMA-262 standard).
>>
>> You are mistaken. ECMA-262 is _not_ the name, it is merely the original
>> registry number.
>
> ECMA clearly states that standard is called "ECMA-262".

No. (There is also no ECMA anymore, the organization is called "Ecma
International" since quite a while.)

> On the download page (with the link to publication):
>
> Standard ECMA-262

That is the original registry number.

> ECMAScript Language Specification

That is the name. It can also be found from Edition 1 to Edition 3 in the
header of each page of the document, on the cover sheet, and from Editions
1 to 5 as highest-level heading (right before section 1).

> <http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-262.htm>
>
> In the actual document, the term "Ecma standard" is used most often,

As in "*this* ECMA/Ecma standard"? Yes, and rightly so. ES5,
Introduction:

| This Ecma Standard is based on several originating technologies, the
| most well known being JavaScript (Netscape) and JScript (Microsoft).
| [...]

"This Ecma Standard" is, of course, to be understood here as "This Standard
published (first) by Ecma International" since Ecma International
(formerly: ECMA) also published a lot of other standards.

> although there's also one occurrence of "ECMAScript standard".

To be precise, in ES5, Introduction:

| The third edition of the ECMAScript standard was adopted by
| the Ecma General Assembly of December 1999 and published as
| ISO/IEC 16262:2002 in June 2002.

Which removes any doubts as to the name of the standard.

>> Another registry number for the standard of the same name
>> is ISO/IEC 16262:2002.
>
> Where does it say that the standard with ISO/IEC 16262:2002 registry
> number is called "ECMAScript standard"?

To be precise, it says "ECMAScript Language Specification" there, too (the
same name, independent of the registry number), but that is a rather long
term, so in discussion the short-hand terms "ECMAScript" and "ECMAScript
standard" (the latter to emphasize that it is a standard document being
referred to) are often used instead.


PointedEars
--
realism: HTML 4.01 Strict
evangelism: XHTML 1.0 Strict
madness: XHTML 1.1 as application/xhtml+xml
-- Bjoern Hoehrmann
From: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn on 2 Feb 2010 10:31
RobG wrote:

> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> RobG wrote:
>> > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> >> [...]
>> >> The term "javascript" is the invention of a wannabe here that failed
>> >> to see the differences between the many implementations, and fell
>> >> into common use because of other wannabes here that failed to or did
>> >> not want to see them.
>> >
>> > Regardless of its heritage, it is by far the most popular general term
>> > for the various ECMAScript implementations. If agreement could have
>> > been reached to use Netscape's trademark for the standard, it would be
>> > called JavaScript.
>> [...]
>> However, it is a mistake to use one term for all the implementations
>> that does not make it obvious that several languages are being discussed
>> (by contrast to, e.g. "ECMAScript implementation*s*").
>
> You can rail against the tide of opinion all you like,

The "tide of opinion" merely exists in your vivid imagination and that of
other wannabes.

> but "javascript" is the generic term used for the various ECMAScript
> implementations in browsers at least,

To be precise, it is used by people who don't know what they are talking
about, or are too lazy to be precise. Unfortunately, their number has
increased here in recent years.

> and several other environments as well. The FAQ seems to agree:

Unfortunately, the FAQ is currently maintained by a wannabe, and has often
(as in this case) been modified without general agreement by him to fit the
fantasies and lazyness of himself and others. Granted, the FAQ at least
defines the term it *invents*; however, that does not prevent the
misconception that must occur when (not if) the term is used without the
definition text or reference to it.

"javascript" becomes even more ambiguous when (not if) it is written
"Javascript" (at the beginning of a sentence, or elsewhere a leading
capital letter would be recommended) as if it would be definitively obvious
to the uninitiated what was meant then. "ECMAScript implementation", by
contrast, does not have either problem; even though it raises questions to
the uninitiated as to what ECMAScript and an ECMAScript implementation is,
those are questions that ultimately lead to *greater* understanding.

> The name of this group infers it.

That is probably the stupidest thing you have ever said.

>> AISB, "javascript" promotes the common misconception of the one
>> scripting language where there are in fact several, different ones
>> that need to be considered when writing especially client-side script
>> code (not considering non-ECMAScript- compliant ones, of course).
>
> Which is why a general definition of JavaScript should note the
> difference between the generic term, the trademark and the
> implementation.

Rubbish. "JavaScript" is the name of one implementation and it is a
trademark. Period.

>> >> > | (Formerly "LiveScript") Netscape's simple,
>> >> >
>> >> > What are the criteria for "simple"? If the criterion is features
>> >> > provided by the base language, then ECAMScript is more complex than
>> >> > C, but C is not described as simple.
>> >> Perhaps simple as compared to Java, because that was the intention
>> >> for creating it.
>> > So you agree that some criterion for "simple" should be included in
>> > the statement.
>> No.
>
> So when you wrote "Perhaps simple as compared to Java" you seem to
> think a qualification was necessary. [...]

No. I tried to explain to you why the word "simple" was chosen, and why it
can be understood without further quibbling.

>> > From the quotes I've seen from Brendan Eich, the link with Java was
>> > just chance.
>> Read again.
>
> Perhaps if you just write slower and louder I'll come around to your
> point of view.

Perhaps if you stopped talking about things that you don't know about as if
you knew about them, you looked a bit wiser.

>> > Netscape were developing a simple scripting language for
>> > browsers. Java was released at about the same time (1995) as he was
>> > working on Mocha, which became LiveScript and then JavaScript in the
>> > space of about 6 months.
>> >
>> > Changing the name and linking it to Java was mostly a marketing
>> > exercise when Netscape teamed up with Sun to leverage the hype
>> > surrounding Java[1], so I don't think there was a specific intention
>> > to be "Java-like".
>>
>> Regardless what you think, that is what it was. The name and syntax was
>> _not_ chosen by mere coincidence, nor is the statement of "Java-like"
>> there in the Specification since ECMAScript Edition 1 by mere chance.
>
> The ECMAScript spec was long after the original development of
> JavaScript

You don't know what you are talking about. JavaScript 1.0 was released,
with Netscape Navigator 2.0, in 1996-03, and ECMAScript Edition 1 was
published in 1997-06. Development of Edition 1 started in 1996-11.

> and continued the name association with Java (for whatever
> reason). The term "Java-like" is better though than "vaguely related
> to Java".

"Java-like" is merely a rewording of "ECMAScript syntax intentionally
resembles Java syntax." that can be found in all Editions and revisions
of the Specification, as I have pointed out to you in this thread several
times before.

>> > [...]
>> >> > | (which is a Sun trademark).
>> >> > So is JavaScript.
>> >> And that does not make you think?
>> > That JavaScript is simplified Java? No. [...]
>> Then you are a fool.
>
> Maybe, but not because you say so.
>
> Brendan Eich stated (in the article I linked to):
>
> "And then in early December, Netscape and Sun did a license agreement
> and it became JavaScript. And the idea was to make it a complementary
> scripting language to go with Java, with the compiled language"
>
> There you have it - JavaScript was intended (at that time) to be
> *complementary* to Java. The idea was that Java plugins would do the
> heavy client-side stuff and JavaScript the light stuff. JavaScript was
> developed independently of Java and its name changed as a marketing
> tactic. One that has backfired to some extent as for a long time
> JavaScript was seen as a dumbed-down version of Java. It isn't, it
> never was and was never intended to be.

You are mistaken. "Complementary" means "one adds to the other", not "one
is concurrent of the other". You don't give a programming language syntax
that closely resembles the syntax of another programming language, and a
name that resembles the name of another programming language to fight the
latter. You obviously do it instead because you think the latter language
is popular enough so that the similarities will help the adoption of your
new language. That has been so with Java and JavaScript at the time, and
Eich's statement clearly says that the agreement was done for mutual
benefit.

>> > And the article doesn't mention that JavaScript is a Sun trademark.
>> So what?
>
> Because a complete definition of "JavaScript" should do that.

I don't think so.

>> >> > | JavaScript is intimately tied to the World-Wide Web,
>> >> >
>> >> > More correctly, it is used most commonly for scripting in browsers
>> >> > on the World Wide Web.
>> >> If you adopt the position that this dictionary entry should not only
>> >> describe JavaScript™, but also JScript aso.,
>> > I don't.
>> Yes, you do.
> No, I don't.
>> This dictionary entry is specifically about JavaScript™,
>
> Is it?

Obviously.

> The trademark isn't mentioned anywhere,

The distinction is made there with JScript to begin with. So quite
obviously this is _not_ a generic description of ECMAScript implementations
(in your parallel universe: "javascript").

>> yet you by your own account you want it to contain more elaborate
>> descriptions about this "javascript" fantasy, JScript, ActionScript aso.
>
> I've explained that "fantasy" and its relevance to the article. It's
> over to the OP now.

Provided the OP is the editor.

>> That does not belong there, it belongs in the entries about
>> "javascript", JScript, and ActionScript aso., if that.
>
> So you think the article should constrain itself to JavaScript™ only?

As it already does.

> But not mention the trademark?

What would it be good for? That there is yet another name that is
trademarked? That the entry needs to be changed if the trademark
owner changes?

>> >> you have to take into account
>> >> that there is Server-Side JavaScript on NES-compatible servers, and
>> >> Service-side JScript (.NET) in ASP (.NET).
>> > Yes, but those uses are far less common than the use in browsers.
>> Stop making assumptions, show some facts for a change.
>
> I think it's a pretty reasonable assumption. There are hundreds of
> millions of browsers in daily use. How many server-side JavaScript
> applications do you know of?

Irrelevant. Try again.

>> >> Therefore, the statement above is correct, and your "more correct"
>> >> version is in fact "less correct".
>> > No, it's not. You seem to have missed the phrase "used most commonly",
>> > or misread it as "used exclusively".
>> No, I didn't.
>
> So you think server-side uses of JavaScript are more common that
> client-side uses?

No, I don't.

> Where's *your* proof?

I don't need to prove statements that exist only in your head.

>> >> > | and currently runs in only three environments
>> >> >
>> >> > If you are talking specifically about JavaScript(tm), perhaps.
>> >> You do know what a dictionary is, don't you?
>> > I don't understand your point.
>> This entry is about JavaScript, not about any delusions of "javascript".
>
> You seem to be deliberatly obtuse.

Pot, kettle, black.

> I can't decide whether you think this article is about JavaScript™ or
> the generic term JavaScript.

Well, we know by now that you have a considerable reading problem.


PointedEars
--
Anyone who slaps a 'this page is best viewed with Browser X' label on
a Web page appears to be yearning for the bad old days, before the Web,
when you had very little chance of reading a document written on another
computer, another word processor, or another network. -- Tim Berners-Lee
From: RobG on 2 Feb 2010 18:07
On Feb 3, 1:31 am, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedE...(a)web.de>
wrote:
> RobG wrote:
> > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
[...]
> > The name of this group infers it.
>
> That is probably the stupidest thing you have ever said.

You really are tiresome. Keep beating your drum, you're the only one
marching to that beat.

Why isn't the group called "com.lang.ecmascript"? Because most
discussion is about ECMAScript ECMAScript as implemented in browsers,
generally refered to as JavaScript or javascript.


> >> AISB, "javascript" promotes the common misconception of the one
> >> scripting language where there are in fact several, different ones
> >> that need to be considered when writing especially client-side script
> >> code (not considering non-ECMAScript- compliant ones, of course).
>
> > Which is why a general definition of JavaScript should note the
> > difference between the generic term, the trademark and the
> > implementation.
>
> Rubbish.  "JavaScript" is the name of one implementation and it is a
> trademark.  Period.

Perhaps you post here purely for the sske of argument. I'm over it.


--
Rob
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: Auto Form Submission
Next: FAQ Topic - Why does 1+1 equal 11? or How do I convert a string to a number? (2010-02-01)