Robert Sayre wrote: > Fighting over the name is pointless. It's not a good name, and web > developers call it "JavaScript".
The name is exactly the point. A new language should have a new name. The deltas from ES3 to the proposed language are larger than ES3 itself. Claims of backward compatibility do not change the fact that there is more than enough new material in the proposal to make it a new language. But at this point in time I would resist standardizing the new language simply because we do not have enough practical experience with it to know if it is good enough to be worth standardizing. I can think of one instance in history when a standards committee produced a good, new design, and that was a long time ago. The current proposal is no Algol 60. It's not even an Algol 68. ES3, aka JavaScript, aka JScript, aka ECMAScript is a small language with a lot of, as you say, not good names. I am in favor of making careful and modest improvements to the language, correcting as much as possible the problems that are most troublesome to actual usage. As responsible stewards of the language, we should not be trying to transform ECMAScript into something else. I don't care what you call your new strongly typed classical language, as long as you don't call it JavaScript or ECMAScript. _______________________________________________ Es4-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es4-discuss
