That would be my preferred solution: the name affects book covers, domains, content, etc. = a significant amount of time and money.
Even worse than renaming ES6 now would be renaming it later, though. > On 23 Jan 2015, at 01:44, Arthur Stolyar <nekr.fab...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Can we leave ES6 to ES6 because it's already here and call ES7 -- ES2016? > Since ES7 not here yet and there are not much mentions of it. > > 2015-01-23 2:39 GMT+02:00 Brendan Eich <bren...@mozilla.org > <mailto:bren...@mozilla.org>>: > Andrea Giammarchi wrote: > I particularly don't like the idea that things could be dropped or rushed > last minute just because the new years eve is coming ... this feel like those > stories with tight deadlines where management could easily fail due > over-expectations on all possible 3rd parts alignment ( you know, like those > 12 different JS engines out there .... + spartans ) > > No last minute slips -- that's a schedule-chicken outcome (where the cars do > not collide but one veers and drives off a cliff!). > > The new stuff has to board its "release train" or its champions and fans will > be sad, and perhaps take a credibility hit. This doesn't mean larger work > must be broken down into too many pieces, but that is a risk. > > Larger work that can track across multiple years is always risky -- in my > experience it very often aims for a target near Alpha Centauri at sublight > speed, when the real action was over at Tau Ceti due to an FTL breakthrough, > but no one knew at first that (a) FTL was possible; or (b) the Centauri > systems were uninhabitable. If you get what I mean ;-). > > (Spartan uses Chakra, last I heard.) > > Mature projects can do rapid-er release more easily than young ones, for > sure. I recall 4.2BSD Unix, then 4.3, and a bit of 4.4. > > I do like the idea of having more frequent rolling releases, but yet I don't > know why year-naming would be the choice. > > Does the name matter? You seemed to be objecting on more substantive grounds. > Don't back off to mere quibbling about labels! > > Anyway, please consider keeping ES6 exactly ES6, we will have time to align > the ESX where X = previous ESX +2009 concept. > > to Doctor Alex, at this point I think you should really stick with ES6 or > avoid the ES at all and use JS 2015 > > This reminds me: Axel (not Alex) cannot recommend "JavaScript 2015" to > anything near the Ecma standard, because trademark. :-/ > > /be > > > > -- > @nekrtemplar <https://twitter.com/nekrtemplar> -- Dr. Axel Rauschmayer a...@rauschma.de rauschma.de
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
