Its the es4 "discuss" list, I think the "technical discussion only" is probably overly restrictive, there's lots of subjective judgements involved in evaluating languages. We just want to hear workable feedback and "it has too many features" or it has many good features that won't work well together isn't particularly helpful. What features would you drop? What problems arise when exactly which features are combined?
Why do you think Java 1.5 is worse than 1.4? That may be relevant given the overlap between the languages. We write a lot of Java around here and we generally prefer 1.5. Our ActionScript3 compiler is written in 1.5 even though to meet our customers needs we had to write a class file "downgrader" to be able to run the compiler on older jvms. We also use a lot of python and that's probably evident in ES4, personally I wish ES4 could have the indent scoping feature but that got shot down long ago. So don't feel limited to technical discussions, just help us out by adding some meat to your criticisms. It would also help if you could get all the extremely good programming language folks you met with at OOPSLA who hate ES4 and feel they are being oppressed by this runaway train wreck of a standards process to voice their concerns. Sounds horrific! Can't imagine how those feelings got scared up ;-) Well its good that people care, they should, but obviously we don't want to steam roll anyone and would like to hear from them, oppressed or otherwise. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Miller Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 10:49 AM To: Chris Pine Cc: zwetan; [email protected] Subject: Re: [TLUG]: ECMAScript ("Javascript") Version 4 - FALSE ALARM On Oct 30, 2007 10:13 AM, Chris Pine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yes, I read that. I am extremely doubtful that Microsoft is suddenly > so concerned about browser compatibility for the benefit of the web. > (When IE passes the Acid 2 test, let's talk again.) > > It's nice that MS has constructed this document identifying browser > differences. But frankly, this is too little, too late. We are > painfully aware of the significant differences. Suggesting that we > all sit down and strive to fix every last trivial discrepancy under > the guise of "browser compatibility" is manipulative and, from a > business standpoint, absurd. It is an unnecessary task that would > never be completed. > > In essence, it is just another stalling tactic. When I raised non-technical points critical of the ES4 proposal, people rightly shot back with a "technical discussion only!" response, which I've respected. Since then, most of the traffic on the list has been non-technical criticisms of the critics of the ES4 proposal. Much of this traffic, such as the message I quote above, continues to speculate about the motives of others, rather than engaging with what they are saying. My comments, which provoked so much response, contained no such speculation. I can only conclude that, on this list, the injunction "technical discussion only!" should be interpreted as carrying the additional clause "unless you agree with us." -- Text by me above is hereby placed in the public domain Cheers, --MarkM _______________________________________________ Es4-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es4-discuss _______________________________________________ Es4-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es4-discuss
