Two different issues: * I agree that renaming ES.next this late will be difficult * The smaller incremental releases have been planned for a while [1] and make sense: only if something is mostly done in most browsers does it become part of the standard. That is, releases are driven by features not the other way around. How often is debatable, but small and incremental is good.
[1] https://github.com/tc39/ecma262 <https://github.com/tc39/ecma262> (esp. link “this process document”) > On 23 Jan 2015, at 01:11, Andrea Giammarchi <[email protected]> > wrote: > > I really don't understand ... > > Draft > ECMA-262 > 6th Edition > https://people.mozilla.org/~jorendorff/es6-draft.html > <https://people.mozilla.org/~jorendorff/es6-draft.html> > > ECMAScript 6 support in Mozilla > https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/New_in_JavaScript/ECMAScript_6_support_in_Mozilla > > <https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/New_in_JavaScript/ECMAScript_6_support_in_Mozilla> > > ES6 Rocks > http://es6rocks.com/ <http://es6rocks.com/> > > > Books already published, years of blog-posts all over the internet educating > developers about ES6 features. A clear deadline in terms of features instead > of year since by the end of 2015 I am pretty sure no engine will be fully > spec-compliant with the spec. > > What is this new "back to year-versioning" approach? > > Why suddenly we need a full new release each year when it took 15 years to > have full ES3 support from all vendors? > > This feels like Adobe and the AS1 to AS3 era, the one that lost most > developers due inability to catch up with anything and confusion across just > specs. > > And that was a single "vendor" proposing new features for its language, I > cannot imagine where this is going. > > /rant > > Best Regards > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 12:02 AM, Brendan Eich <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > "Harmony" refers to the whole post-ES4 consensus-based arc of specs from ES5 > (neé 3.1) onward into the future, until "done" ;-). See > > https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2008-August/006837.html > <https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2008-August/006837.html> > > ECMAScript Harmony never referred to a specific edition of ECMA-262, nor > could it. The "Harmony" name is used in nearby sub-fields of programming > languages and software, e.g., the open source Java libraries developed under > Apache auspices. > > FWIW, ES6 is a known thing, in view of sites such as > > http://kangax.github.io/compat-table/es6/ > <http://kangax.github.io/compat-table/es6/> > > (which goes to "7" ;-). > > Still, we can probably educate people and spread the word that ES6 = > ECMAScript 2015, ES7 = ECMAScript 2016, etc. All under the "Harmony" > umbrella, I trust. > > /be > > Arthur Stolyar wrote: > Hi, > > I now version does not matter but implementation and features matter, why > then you dropped the "Harmony" name? It was using for a while, then ES6 was > using for a while, now you wants new name. Sounds weird. Argument about > features does not work. > > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > <https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss> > > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss -- Dr. Axel Rauschmayer [email protected] rauschma.de
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
