Whenever you mention revolutionary calendar I'm reminded of subsidized time in Infinite Jest. "ES Year of Dairy Products from the American Heartland" anyone? :)
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 5:35 PM, Brendan Eich <[email protected]> wrote: > The annuals idea was agreeable to TC39ers a recent meetings. Whether and > how we cut over was not decided, in my view. > > Rushing to the new revolutionary calendar would be a mistake. We (TC39) > need to cash checks we've written, and not with our body :-P. > > /be > > Angus Croll wrote: > >> Name names. Who's idea was this? :) >> >> On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 4:53 PM, Axel Rauschmayer <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> 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 <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> 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 <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>>: >>> >>> >>> 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 >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> rauschma.de <http://rauschma.de> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> es-discuss mailing list >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> es-discuss mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >> >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
