>Who, besides Doug Crockford, would be among those "several people"? I believe some Dojo people were against the new ES4, and I did here two people sitting next to me reflect that (sorry I do not know who they were)
>I could not attend that conference (new baby in hospital still). Congrats. >bad, because if I had, you would have heard another side to the >story, and a vigorous debate, and then probably we wouldn't be >playing this "how long have you been beating your wife?" game. Which >I refuse to play. Um... I am not accusing you or anyone. This is what was said at the TAE, but not by me > >> 2) There was not consensus on the new features, but they are being >> pushed >> through anyway > >Did you read my message in response to the slashdot anonymous >coverage of that TAE panel, sent to this list? Here's a link: > >https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es4-discuss/2007-October/001309.html I did read it. However, I do beleive Doug's quote was "half of the of the working group did NOT agree, but it is being pushed through anyway". I wrote this down word for word at the time, but may have attributed incorrectly. >of being mentally dim. He called a press conference to deny the >allegation, which did not help. I'm not that dumb, so I'm going to >reject your question and ask you to justify its premise. If we don't >share premises, there's no point arguing conclusions. I never said you were dumb- quite the opposite, but I fail to see how rejecting the question gets us anywhere. >> Can anyone else comment HOW either party would benfit if this did >> happen? > >Can you stop assuming your conclusion (Adobe/Mozilla conspiracy) for >a minute and examine its premise (which can be addressed by looking >at public materials on exactly who created ES4 as proposed in TG1)? I have reviewed quite a few docs, although I may have missed more. I like ES4 and thank you for your hard work. However, my question still stands. >> also can you comment on why there was more than AS3 added to the new >> language? > >The rationales are summarized in the white paper (http:// >www.ecmascript.org/es4/spec/overview.pdf). Detailed rationales were >originally given in the proposals namespace of http:// >wiki.ecmascript.org/. If you are curious about the detailed history >of the design evolution, please read these proposal pages, and their >linked discussion pages. We put these in the open so anyone can check >our reasoning and see that there's no hidden agenda for ES4. > > >These are two of several features not in AS3, but AS3 is hardly the >ne plus ultra of JavaScript. So again I think your question is skewed >toward Adobe. Opera contributed ideas and solutions based on its >experience. Upon review, I SHOULD become more informed before sticking my foot in it. Sorry. >Frankly, I think you are approaching the claims that I've seen >attributed to Doug Crockford at The Ajax Experience a bit >credulously. Since I was not there to give the other side, or at >least one other side, let's back up from taking Doug's claims as >gospel truth and putting other groups on trial based on one person's >statements. You are correct sir: I do respect Doug and thus lent weight to the argument, but I also respect John Resig, who was at the conference. The differing opinions is why we are having these discussions. Thank you for taking the time to address these postings _______________________________________________ Es4-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es4-discuss
