Prev: FAQ Topic - My element is named myselect[], how do I access it?(2010-04-09)
Next: FAQ Topic - Why doesn't the global variable "divId" always refer to the element with id="divId"? (2010-04-10)
From: Johannes Baagoe on 9 Apr 2010 10:31
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn :
> Johannes Baagoe :
>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn :
>>> Antony Scriven :
>>>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn :

>>>>> There is no "javascript".
>>>>> <http://jibbering.com/faq/>

>>>> That's not helpful since 2.1 states `The term "javascript" is
>>>> used as a common name for all dialects of ECMAScript.'

>>> That's a bug.

>> I disagree.

> It is pure invention by those who don't know better or don't want
> to know better.

Also by, among others, the authors of MIME types and by the founders
of this newsgroup - you are, of course, welcome to launch a Request
For Discussion to rename it. On the other hand, we just might agree
that pedantic nitpicking is harmful, unless where it is justified
by a precise point that actually makes a difference.

>> Plain "javascript" (not "JavaScript") is widely used that way,
>> cf. MIME types, and is readily understood. It seems to me that
>> Brendan Eich has a point when he says that "ECMAScript" sounds like
>> a skin disease.

> The point is that without telling about the runtime environment
> the term "javascript" as a replacement term is pretty useless as
> statement made about it can be both completely right and completely
> wrong, and source code presented to be "javascript" code can be
> both syntactically correct and incorrect, working and not working,
> concepts described with it correctly or incorrectly, all depending
> on the runtime environment.

That is true enough, and a request to the OP for clarification would
have been helpful. The flat statement "There is no "javascript""
is not.

> Further, the term promotes the common misconception that there would
> be only one language with "dialects", where the diversity is clearly
> a lot greater than this.

A language is a dialect with an army and a navy.

> Referring to Brendan Eich in this matter and manner is an argument
> at authority -- obviously fallacious. Even Brendan Eich can be wrong,
> and the fact that he thinks "ECMAScript" sounded like a skin disease
> (and I do not subscribe to that opinion)

You don't need to be Eich to see that there is an unfortunate closeness
to "eczema".

On the other hand, he *did* invent the language; it may be argued
that he is entitled to an opinion as to the proper name or names of
his brainchild.

> bears no relevance on the (in)correctness and (lacking) precision
> of the term "javascript".

Sometimes, a certain lack of precision is *precisely* what is intended,
and the inability to express it entails rather ridiculous efforts
like "(s)he". I use "ECMAScript" when there is a precise reference
to the ECMA specifications, "JavaScript", "JScript", etc, when some
vendor-specific version is intended, and plain "javascript" when the
point under discussion is more generic. Which, I am pleased to see,
is exactly what the FAQ suggests.

As for the correction, if one does not simply admit that usage is
the sole criterion and insist that some authority has to decide,
I would argue that Eich's opinion carries more weight than yours.

--
Johannes
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: FAQ Topic - My element is named myselect[], how do I access it?(2010-04-09)
Next: FAQ Topic - Why doesn't the global variable "divId" always refer to the element with id="divId"? (2010-04-10)