JavaScript (tm) hoax
in [JavaScript]
|
Prev: FAQ Topic - Why does 1+1 equal 11? or How do I convert a string to a number? (2010-05-30)
Next: ANNC: qooxlisp 0.1: Driving Miss qooxdoo (from Common Lisp)
From: VK on 30 May 2010 12:32 On May 30, 7:02 pm, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedE...(a)web.de> wrote: > There is one in the heads of its inventors. Unfortunately, that is not what > the rest of the world understands it to be. When back in July 1995 Brendan Eich, a 34 years old invited Unix specialist, set down to write a helper language for Netscape browser to get the max out of the "thin client" Java concept: back then he called it "Mocha" to continue the coffee naming concept from Sun. Just prior the release in September of 1995 it was renamed to "LiveScript" to sound more dynamic and attractive. Yet after the preliminary testing is over the language was voluntaristically renamed into "JavaScript" in November of 1995 because "Java" was a "buzz word" of the day at that time. So no, there were not three fairies over the bed of the newborn language. Only the ugly PR suckers. One wants to get the innocence name back - call it LiveScript then. or Mocha. Anything else is a pure politics.
From: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn on 30 May 2010 13:29 VK wrote: > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> There is one in the heads of its inventors. Unfortunately, that is not >> what the rest of the world understands it to be. > > When back in July 1995 Brendan Eich, [snip fairytale] Brendan Eich did not invent (the term) "javascript", he invented JavaScript. Got it? PointedEars -- var bugRiddenCrashPronePieceOfJunk = ( navigator.userAgent.indexOf('MSIE 5') != -1 && navigator.userAgent.indexOf('Mac') != -1 ) // Plone, register_function.js:16
From: John G Harris on 30 May 2010 13:27 On Sun, 30 May 2010 at 01:15:25, in comp.lang.javascript, VK wrote: >I got really wondered with the recent fuss about "JavaScript is >terribly copyrighted, the language is called ECMAScript from now on, >and further". <snip> There are three major errors in that paragraph. First, trademarks have nothing to do with copyright. Copyright stops you copying large chunks of text, film, etc. and selling it without permission. A trademark says that this product was made by X or by someone licensed by X to use the mark. (Think MacDonald's) Second, no-one has asked for it to be called ECMAScript. ECMAScript is part of the JavaScript language but not all of it, just as it's part of the JScript language but not all of it. No-one has suggested that 'ECMAScript' should have two meanings in this news group. Third, 'JavaScript' excludes anything implemented by Microsoft. There are plenty of people who pretend that Microsoft doesn't exist, but the comp.lang.* newsgroups can't afford to be so partisan. The fuss, as you call it, is to find a term that does include things coming from Microsoft. John -- John Harris
From: John G Harris on 30 May 2010 13:39 On Sun, 30 May 2010 at 01:15:25, in comp.lang.javascript, VK wrote: <snip> >to get the Swiss ECMA hell out of the >picture... ECMA is foreign! Bad! Wicked! Nuke it! <snip> >The "toy language" is the definite winner: and there is >an army of highly upset C++'ers (and a few survived Java'ers) looking >at that. <snip> Are you seriously suggesting that ECMAScript is used to build an operating system ? John -- John Harris
From: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn on 30 May 2010 14:01
John G Harris wrote: > VK wrote: >> I got really wondered with the recent fuss about "JavaScript is >> terribly copyrighted, the language is called ECMAScript from now on, >> and further". > > There are three major errors in that paragraph. > > First, trademarks have nothing to do with copyright. Copyright stops you > copying large chunks of text, film, etc. and selling it without > permission. No, a copyright does not by definition stop one from doing that; instead, it provides the copyright holder with a means to restrict the *legal* distribution of the work thus protected. > A trademark says that this product was made by X or by > someone licensed by X to use the mark. (Think MacDonald's) _McDonald's_ > Second, no-one has asked for it to be called ECMAScript. ACK > ECMAScript is part of the JavaScript language but not all of it, just as > it's part of the JScript language but not all of it. Utter nonsense. > No-one has suggested that 'ECMAScript' should have two meanings in this > news group. Correct. > Third, 'JavaScript' excludes anything implemented by Microsoft. There > are plenty of people who pretend that Microsoft doesn't exist, but the > comp.lang.* newsgroups can't afford to be so partisan. The fuss, as you > call it, is to find a term that does include things coming from > Microsoft. .... and other implementors. PointedEars -- Prototype.js was written by people who don't know javascript for people who don't know javascript. People who don't know javascript are not the best source of advice on designing systems that use javascript. -- Richard Cornford, cljs, <f806at$ail$1$8300dec7(a)news.demon.co.uk> |