I think JavaScript 6 will only make things more confusing (remember JavaScript 1.7, 1.8, etc. in Mozilla?).
More and more people learn what ECMAScript is. ES6 / ECMAScript 6 seems the most appropriate (and least surprising) name. -- kangax On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 10:07 PM, Axel Rauschmayer <a...@rauschma.de> wrote: > I’m in the process of coming up with a good title for a book on ECMAScript > 6. That begs the question: What is the best way to refer to ECMAScript 6? > > 1. The obvious choices: ECMAScript 6 or ES6. > 2. Suggested by Allen [1]: JavaScript 2015. > > The advantage of #2 is that many people don’t know what ECMAScript 6 is. > However, I’m worried that a book that has “2015” in its title will appear > old in 2016. And the year scheme completely breaks with current tradition. > I see two possibilities: > > * If there is a concerted effort to establish “JavaScript 2015” then I > would support that and name my book accordingly. > * Otherwise, JavaScript 6 is interesting: People who are aware of > ECMAScript 6 will recognize it, but it will also mean something to people > who don’t know what ECMAScript is. Is 2015, 2016, … really that much better > than 6, 7, 8, … ? Would skipped years pose a problem for the former naming > scheme? > > Axel > > [1] https://twitter.com/awbjs/status/558316031039381504 > > -- > Dr. Axel Rauschmayer > a...@rauschma.de > rauschma.de > > > > > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > es-discuss@mozilla.org > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
