Re: JavaScript 2015?
* Axel Rauschmayer wrote: I’m in the process of coming up with a good title for a book on ECMAScript 6. That begs the question: What is the best way to refer to ECMAScript 6? 1. The obvious choices: ECMAScript 6 or ES6. 2. Suggested by Allen [1]: JavaScript 2015. The advantage of #2 is that many people don’t know what ECMAScript 6 is. However, I’m worried that a book that has “2015” in its title will appear old in 2016. Well, Microsoft Office 1997 came out in 1996, Office 2000 in 1999... So, JavaScript 2016 would be a better title for marketing purposes. There is also the option leap ahead a bit further with JavaScript 3000, but Python tried that already. Over in the lands of Perl 5 Modern Perl is the catchphrase booktitle, but that seems to be taken for JavaScript. It would also be possible to take a clue from the browser vendors and make it a BoD or e-book offering and increase the version number ever six weeks or so (clearly justified by folding in errata). Another option is to make reference to the past, like Post-Snowden JavaScript or better perhaps JavaScript after Snowden. Might make for a good setup to talk about OO-design, classes, information hiding, and so on... -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjo...@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de D-10243 Berlin · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de Available for hire in Berlin (early 2015) · http://www.websitedev.de/ ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Re: JavaScript 2015?
[...] asking Oracle [...] If they both read it and reply (you have a decent chance of getting one or the other, both is unlikely). On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 3:47 PM, Isiah Meadows impinb...@gmail.com wrote: @all Should we rename this list to es-bikeshed? Seems to fit with the theme here. ;) In all reality, I'm strongly considering asking Oracle about the specific enforcement status of the JavaScript trademark. If (and when) I do, I'll forward as much information as I can here. ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Re: JavaScript 2015?
@all Should we rename this list to es-bikeshed? Seems to fit with the theme here. ;) In all reality, I'm strongly considering asking Oracle about the specific enforcement status of the JavaScript trademark. If (and when) I do, I'll forward as much information as I can here. ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Re: JavaScript 2015?
Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote: I can only speak about ES5 (don't know about ES1,2,3 but a I'm pretty sure there wasn't a year long bake period before each of those). Nope. /be ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Re: JavaScript 2015?
On Jan 23, 2015, at 12:08 AM, Aaron Frost wrote: Trying to understand the cadenced release process. In the past a Final Draft would be cut and allowed to bake for 12 months before an Official Approval by the Ecma General Assembly. Is that 12-month bake still going to be in place? I can only speak about ES5 (don't know about ES1,2,3 but a I'm pretty sure there wasn't a year long bake period before each of those). The 12 month make was has been aspirational, but the reality is messier. For ES5 we issued the first Candidate Final Draft in April 2009, a TC39 Approval Draft Sept 1, 2009 (it was approved by TC39 Sept 23, 2009) and we then released the final document (with minor editoral corrections) into the Ecma GA approval process. The Ecma GA accepted in as a standard at the Dec. 2009 meeting. For ES6, we tried to say we were feature complete in Jan 2014 but the reality is that it wasn't until either the June or July meeting that we firmly closed the door on new features. Most of the changes that have occurred since then have been about cutting, completing or fixing the specification (and where necessary the design) of features that had already been accepted into the spec. If this 12-month bake is still around, that would mean that the Final Draft for ES 2016 will need to be cut by June of this year, so that it can bake for 12 months and be ready by June 2016 for an Official Approval. This would mean that features not hardened enough by June 2015 will not make it into ES 2016. If this is not how it will work, could you share the expected process of future releases? I am very interested to hear how it will work. Working backwards, here is the end game for ES6 release: Early June 2015: Ecma GA approval at their semi-annual meeting April 1-June (Ecma CC and GA review period, editorial preparation of publication document) March 26, Approval of Final Draft at March 24-26 TC39 meeting this is the last date that TC39 can approve and achieve June GA approval after this point, the only changes can be minor editorial or technical bug correction that don't require TC39 review Feb. 20, Final Approval Draft Release Member organization need at least 30 days before voting to approve Reported bugs will continue to be fixed Feb 2-19, Editor frantically incorporates Jan. meeting technical changes plus technical and editorial bug fixes to produce final draft. Jan 27-29, TC39 meeting Produce a small set of final technical changes for the editor to apply This must be a very small delta from current spec. as there is really no time for major spec. change or for another technical review cycle (At various points in the above schedule, the editor may release intermediate draft updates) Allen ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Re: JavaScript 2015?
On Jan 23, 2015, at 10:11 AM, Kevin Smith wrote: Feb 2-19, Editor frantically incorporates Jan. meeting technical changes No pressure! : ) I should have added: and dozen of new typos Come on, where's your programmer's optimism? I said dozens rather hundreds Allen___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Re: JavaScript 2015?
On Jan 23, 2015, at 2:15 AM, Andrea Giammarchi wrote: Thanks Allen, same as Brendan, always on the HTML version. My bad. However, it's not perfectly clear where the living standard name has been decided as such. https://github.com/tc39/tc39-notes/blob/master/es6/2014-09/sept-25.md#conclusionresolution-1 Allen___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Re: JavaScript 2015?
Feb 2-19, Editor frantically incorporates Jan. meeting technical changes No pressure! : ) (and thanks) ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Re: JavaScript 2015?
Feb 2-19, Editor frantically incorporates Jan. meeting technical changes No pressure! : ) I should have added: and dozen of new typos Come on, where's your programmer's optimism? ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Re: JavaScript 2015?
On Jan 23, 2015, at 9:41 AM, Kevin Smith wrote: Feb 2-19, Editor frantically incorporates Jan. meeting technical changes No pressure! : ) I should have added: and dozen of new typos Allen ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Re: Re: JavaScript 2015?
Trying to understand the cadenced release process. In the past a Final Draft would be cut and allowed to bake for 12 months before an Official Approval by the Ecma General Assembly. Is that 12-month bake still going to be in place? If this 12-month bake is still around, that would mean that the Final Draft for ES 2016 will need to be cut by June of this year, so that it can bake for 12 months and be ready by June 2016 for an Official Approval. This would mean that features not hardened enough by June 2015 will not make it into ES 2016. If this is not how it will work, could you share the expected process of future releases? I am very interested to hear how it will work. BTW, great work! Label changes and all, I am very excited for this revision to be approved. ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Re: JavaScript 2015?
Thanks Allen, same as Brendan, always on the HTML version. My bad. However, it's not perfectly clear where the living standard name has been decided as such. With all little things that could have made in ES6 but nobody wanted to rush in, realizing at 2 months from the final spec that the name everyone talked about changed was more than a surprise, hence my WTF reaction. I still find weird the year-name label convention but I start understanding the why and its goal. Please consider the switch for ES7 and maybe drop the 7th bit from the spec page. Best Regards On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 2:58 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.com wrote: On Jan 22, 2015, at 5:40 PM, Brendan Eich wrote: Domenic Denicola wrote: I believe the cutover was decided in the September 25 meeting. I must have missed it if so -- do the notes record it? https://github.com/tc39/tc39-notes/blob/master/es6/2014-09/sept-25.md#conclusionresolution-1 bassed upon that I confirmed with Istvan that Ecma was ok with a document title change However, I delayed actually change the cover page until the first draft release in 2015 That change was announced in the release notes: http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:specification_drafts#january_15_2015_draft_rev_31 And highly visible to anybody who looks at the front cover: http://wiki.ecmascript.org/lib/exe/fetch.php?id=harmony%3Aspecification_draftscache=cachemedia=harmony:working_draft_ecma-262_edition_6_01-15-15.pdf http://wiki.ecmascript.org/lib/exe/fetch.php?id=harmony:specification_draftscache=cachemedia=harmony:working_draft_ecma-262_edition_6_01-15-15.pdf Allen ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Re: JavaScript 2015?
Aaron Frost wrote: Trying to understand the cadenced release process. In the past a Final Draft would be cut and allowed to bake for 12 months before an Official Approval by the Ecma General Assembly. Is that 12-month bake still going to be in place? More like six months, really -- Allen can give even more precise time tables. /be ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Re: JavaScript 2015?
For what it matters, I've summarized my thoughts and described the problem here: http://webreflection.blogspot.de/2015/01/javascript-and-living-ecmascript.html I know here it looks like I've been just a drama queen, but I think naming milestones are a better approach and brought better results to the JS community. You all know what's best for the specs though, so I'll drop further comments here. Best Regards On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 10:15 AM, Andrea Giammarchi andrea.giammar...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks Allen, same as Brendan, always on the HTML version. My bad. However, it's not perfectly clear where the living standard name has been decided as such. With all little things that could have made in ES6 but nobody wanted to rush in, realizing at 2 months from the final spec that the name everyone talked about changed was more than a surprise, hence my WTF reaction. I still find weird the year-name label convention but I start understanding the why and its goal. Please consider the switch for ES7 and maybe drop the 7th bit from the spec page. Best Regards On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 2:58 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.com wrote: On Jan 22, 2015, at 5:40 PM, Brendan Eich wrote: Domenic Denicola wrote: I believe the cutover was decided in the September 25 meeting. I must have missed it if so -- do the notes record it? https://github.com/tc39/tc39-notes/blob/master/es6/2014-09/sept-25.md#conclusionresolution-1 bassed upon that I confirmed with Istvan that Ecma was ok with a document title change However, I delayed actually change the cover page until the first draft release in 2015 That change was announced in the release notes: http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:specification_drafts#january_15_2015_draft_rev_31 And highly visible to anybody who looks at the front cover: http://wiki.ecmascript.org/lib/exe/fetch.php?id=harmony%3Aspecification_draftscache=cachemedia=harmony:working_draft_ecma-262_edition_6_01-15-15.pdf http://wiki.ecmascript.org/lib/exe/fetch.php?id=harmony:specification_draftscache=cachemedia=harmony:working_draft_ecma-262_edition_6_01-15-15.pdf Allen ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Re: JavaScript 2015?
The spec is no longer called ES6. The marketing hasn’t really begun to educate the community about this yet, but the spec is called ES 2015. OK, good to know. Does it make sense to normally refer to it as “JavaScript 2015”, then? As for your concern about 2015 seeming old in 2016: **good**. In 2016, we’ll be publishing ES 2016, and ES 2015 will be missing a lot* of stuff that ES 2016 has! * hopefully. Even ignoring books, I don’t share that attitude: for programming languages, a slower pace is good. It took people a long time to get used to ES5 and ES 2015 will have many more new features. It will take time to: * Completely implement ES 2015 * Write proper material * Educate people * Establish modules (I’m seeing browser APIs based on promises, but none that are based on modules) Axel -- Dr. Axel Rauschmayer a...@rauschma.de rauschma.de ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
RE: JavaScript 2015?
The spec is no longer called ES6. The marketing hasn’t really begun to educate the community about this yet, but the spec is called ES 2015. As for your concern about 2015 seeming old in 2016: **good**. In 2016, we’ll be publishing ES 2016, and ES 2015 will be missing a lot* of stuff that ES 2016 has! * hopefully. ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Re: JavaScript 2015?
Honestly though, to the largest portion of JavaScript developers, the least surprising name would be `JavaScript 2.0` - Matthew Robb On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 4:25 PM, Domenic Denicola d...@domenic.me wrote: The spec is no longer called ES6. The marketing hasn’t really begun to educate the community about this yet, but the spec is called ES 2015. As for your concern about 2015 seeming old in 2016: **good**. In 2016, we’ll be publishing ES 2016, and ES 2015 will be missing a lot* of stuff that ES 2016 has! * hopefully. ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
RE: JavaScript 2015?
From: Axel Rauschmayer [mailto:a...@rauschma.de] OK, good to know. Does it make sense to normally refer to it as “JavaScript 2015”, then? I don't really think so, but I don't have a storng opinion. Even ignoring books, I don’t share that attitude: for programming languages, a slower pace is good. Well, I'm sorry* the committee plans to disappoint you then :). * not actually sorry. * Establish modules (I’m seeing browser APIs based on promises, but none that are based on modules) This is just further reflection of the idea that spec version numbers are fictional and what matters is implementation progress. Promises are established because they've been implemented for a long time now. Modules aren't even close to being implemented anywhere. Saying they're both part of the same Word document is a true, but useless, statement. ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
RE: JavaScript 2015?
That term is kind of poisoned it seems: https://www.google.com/search?q=javascript+2.0 From: Matthew Robb [mailto:matthewwr...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 16:40 To: Domenic Denicola Cc: Axel Rauschmayer; es-discuss list; Kyle Simpson Subject: Re: JavaScript 2015? Honestly though, to the largest portion of JavaScript developers, the least surprising name would be `JavaScript 2.0` - Matthew Robb On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 4:25 PM, Domenic Denicola d...@domenic.memailto:d...@domenic.me wrote: The spec is no longer called ES6. The marketing hasn’t really begun to educate the community about this yet, but the spec is called ES 2015. As for your concern about 2015 seeming old in 2016: **good**. In 2016, we’ll be publishing ES 2016, and ES 2015 will be missing a lot* of stuff that ES 2016 has! * hopefully. ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.orgmailto:es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Re: JavaScript 2015?
There's a lot of projects, articles and materials out there using the ES6 nomenclature. I don't think changing the name right now, close to the final release, and when people are already familiarized with the name is good approach. What is the point? Using the year in the version name remind me Windows. On Thu Jan 22 2015 at 8:14:28 PM Domenic Denicola d...@domenic.me wrote: From: Axel Rauschmayer [mailto:a...@rauschma.de] OK, good to know. Does it make sense to normally refer to it as “JavaScript 2015”, then? I don't really think so, but I don't have a storng opinion. Even ignoring books, I don’t share that attitude: for programming languages, a slower pace is good. Well, I'm sorry* the committee plans to disappoint you then :). * not actually sorry. * Establish modules (I’m seeing browser APIs based on promises, but none that are based on modules) This is just further reflection of the idea that spec version numbers are fictional and what matters is implementation progress. Promises are established because they've been implemented for a long time now. Modules aren't even close to being implemented anywhere. Saying they're both part of the same Word document is a true, but useless, statement. ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Re: JavaScript 2015?
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 bren...@mozilla.org 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 a...@rauschma.de mailto:a...@rauschma.de 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 nekr.fab...@gmail.com mailto: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 mailto:a...@rauschma.de rauschma.de http://rauschma.de ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org mailto:es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Re: JavaScript 2015?
On Jan 22, 2015, at 5:40 PM, Brendan Eich wrote: Domenic Denicola wrote: I believe the cutover was decided in the September 25 meeting. I must have missed it if so -- do the notes record it? https://github.com/tc39/tc39-notes/blob/master/es6/2014-09/sept-25.md#conclusionresolution-1 bassed upon that I confirmed with Istvan that Ecma was ok with a document title change However, I delayed actually change the cover page until the first draft release in 2015 That change was announced in the release notes: http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:specification_drafts#january_15_2015_draft_rev_31 And highly visible to anybody who looks at the front cover: http://wiki.ecmascript.org/lib/exe/fetch.php?id=harmony%3Aspecification_draftscache=cachemedia=harmony:working_draft_ecma-262_edition_6_01-15-15.pdf Allen___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Re: JavaScript 2015?
On 1/22/15, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.org wrote: Andrea Giammarchi wrote: agreed and not only, it took years before various engines fully implemented ES5 so saying years later that an engine is fully compliant with a year in the past feels so wrong !!! Why is that? Where is the thread that explains this decision? I mean ... how should I call my browser that is not 100% compliant with HTML5, a fully compliant HTML 1997 browser ? Of course this question arose with respect to HTML5, which was nowhere near done (is it yet?) before marketeers at browser vendors started touting compatibility and various players hyped the orange shield. (And then Hixie said it was a living spec, version-free. :-P) HTML5 isn't going to be done. I wrote, extensible design doesn't have a due date, someone else coined living standard, and that sealed it in. EcmaScript differs from HTML5 obviously in that it defines the syntax, including new syntax features like spread, modes (strict and non-strict), and internal specification methods like [[ToPrimitive]] new internal methods like [[NeedsSuper]]. Syntax features are more complex than new built-ins (or any new host objects of HTML5) because they affect the language itself and all of its dependencies, internal and external. Language modes increase this complexity. Modularity can make when is it going to be done less of an issue. I don't see how modules could be used for new syntax features (they possibly could be; I just don't see how). But speaking of the orange shield, what about a sticker for HTML4 with It works as a tagline? -- Garrett @xkit ChordCycles.com garretts.github.io ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Re: JavaScript 2015?
On Jan 22, 2015 7:17 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.org wrote: Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote: Serves me right for looking only at the HTML! And the html is still one rev behind so you are missing all of the constructor redo that is in rev31 Not for Allen, who I am pretty sure agrees: This seems just fine, not a problem. Yet at least for a while, possibly longer than some TC39ers think, people will still say ES6. I find Andrea's WTF to be overdone, overstated -- but we shall find out. Even TC39 can make changes based on wider feedback, after it has made a decision. The idea of a community-approved name or naming scheme brings to mind that Axel wished for a community-managed trademark. Be careful what you wish for. The Ecma TC39 renaming process (like just about any other TC39 decision process) was not community-driven, with a lengthy propose/listen/dispose cycle and some kind of open governance (however defined). Rather, we're still doing consensus among a mix of pay-to-play and not-for-profit standard body members, where members have to build trust among developers and work in Harmony, at least in the modern post-ES4 era. Renaming angst, which could become an issue or just blow up for some reason we can't foresee, is just one issue to address for the same of developer trust and harmony. /be ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Re: JavaScript 2015?
Send it with the right metadata... On Jan 22, 2015 10:36 PM, Isiah Meadows impinb...@gmail.com wrote: From: Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.org To: Axel Rauschmayer a...@rauschma.de Cc: Arthur Stolyar nekr.fab...@gmail.com, es-discuss list es-discuss@mozilla.org Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 17:32:48 -0800 Subject: Re: JavaScript 2015? I wouldn't hold my breath. Sun was not ever in the mood, even when I checked while at Mozilla just before the Oracle acquisition closed. Also, the community cannot own a trademark. Trademarks must be defended, or you lose them. This arguably has happened to JavaScript. Perhaps the best course is to find out (the hard way) whether this is so. /be Axel Rauschmayer wrote: This reminds me: Axel (not Alex) cannot recommend JavaScript 2015 to anything near the Ecma standard, because trademark. :-/ Ah, good point. It’d be lovely if whoever owns the trademark now (Oracle?) could donate it to the community. Or the community buys it via crowd-funded money. -- Dr. Axel Rauschmayer a...@rauschma.de mailto:a...@rauschma.de rauschma.de Would this constitute a good question to ask Oracle formally? Probably the best and safest way to check. ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
RE: JavaScript 2015?
From: es-discuss [mailto:es-discuss-boun...@mozilla.org] On Behalf Of Axel Rauschmayer I don’t care what ES7 is called, but I have to decide soon on what to put on the cover of an ES6 book and that cover will either be inspired by a 6 or by a 2015. ES 2015 is the official name of the spec. Various people will probably still call it ES6 for a while. (I know it hasn't become automatic for me to type yet.) It might be hard for your readers to Google and find the official spec if you use ES6, but they'll probably find other resources more readily, at least for now. In general I think you're in trouble if you're trying to tie your book marketing to version numbers. _Maybe_ naming a book after, say, C# 5 makes sense, since C# is essentially bundled with single-vendor Visual Studio releases and each version is implemented all at once. But even then, the old books I have on my bookshelf are named things like C# in Depth and More Effective C#, and get edition updates as Microsoft spins out new versions. For the web, such a naming scheme makes even less sense. Features on the web are implemented piecemeal from draft specifications and/or living standards, and updated over time, and there is never a cross section of ES you can point to in real-world implementations and say this is ES 2015. Books purporting to cover HTML5 or CSS3 are a joke. The same is true for ES 2015, or ES 2016. ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Re: JavaScript 2015?
I bet hipsters will drop the 20 for a shorter name, ES15 ;) I feel your pain Axel. I have been helping out with a lot of web boot camps lately teaching newcomers web technologies. Trying to explain all this is a real mess. Many developers I know that passively touch JS daily at work are unfamiliar, confused or frightened by the ES terminology still! At least with JS/ES you can explain clear iterations even if vendors haven't fully adopted. Living specs like HTML5 are almost impossible for newcomers to grasp, it's kinda sad. Axel, I look forward to your book regardless of the title. It's refreshing to see someone care about educating people on proper nomenclature. Heck, it looks like this thread could be a chapter defining the mess that is web technologies :-) On Jan 22, 2015, at 9:19 PM, Domenic Denicola d...@domenic.me wrote: From: es-discuss [mailto:es-discuss-boun...@mozilla.org] On Behalf Of Axel Rauschmayer I don’t care what ES7 is called, but I have to decide soon on what to put on the cover of an ES6 book and that cover will either be inspired by a 6 or by a 2015. ES 2015 is the official name of the spec. Various people will probably still call it ES6 for a while. (I know it hasn't become automatic for me to type yet.) It might be hard for your readers to Google and find the official spec if you use ES6, but they'll probably find other resources more readily, at least for now. In general I think you're in trouble if you're trying to tie your book marketing to version numbers. _Maybe_ naming a book after, say, C# 5 makes sense, since C# is essentially bundled with single-vendor Visual Studio releases and each version is implemented all at once. But even then, the old books I have on my bookshelf are named things like C# in Depth and More Effective C#, and get edition updates as Microsoft spins out new versions. For the web, such a naming scheme makes even less sense. Features on the web are implemented piecemeal from draft specifications and/or living standards, and updated over time, and there is never a cross section of ES you can point to in real-world implementations and say this is ES 2015. Books purporting to cover HTML5 or CSS3 are a joke. The same is true for ES 2015, or ES 2016. ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Re: JavaScript 2015?
Andrea Giammarchi wrote: I've heard the delivery, delivery, delivery story before and I haven't seen a single case where that translated into more quality as outcome. You make it sound like quantity goes up, or at least exceeds what can be QA'ed by implementors and developers before being standardized. That too would be a failure. If ES2016 is very slender, so be it. Perhaps that will cost credibility, but it's better than creating another multi-year catch-up situation, as we had in ES5 and then ES6. /be ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Re: JavaScript 2015?
On Thu Jan 22 2015 at 9:58:24 PM Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.com wrote: On Jan 22, 2015, at 5:40 PM, Brendan Eich wrote: Domenic Denicola wrote: I believe the cutover was decided in the September 25 meeting. I must have missed it if so -- do the notes record it? https://github.com/tc39/tc39-notes/blob/master/es6/2014-09/sept-25.md#conclusionresolution-1 bassed upon that I confirmed with Istvan that Ecma was ok with a document title change However, I delayed actually change the cover page until the first draft release in 2015 That change was announced in the release notes: http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:specification_drafts#january_15_2015_draft_rev_31 Then it makes sense to also align Ecma-402 (since it wants to align with Ecma-262) and the 2nd edition should just be Ecma-402 2015. Rick ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Re: JavaScript 2015?
This seems just fine, not a problem. Yet at least for a while, possibly longer than some TC39ers think, people will still say ES6. I find Andrea's WTF to be overdone, overstated -- but we shall find out. Even TC39 can make changes based on wider feedback, after it has made a decision. The idea of a community-approved name or naming scheme brings to mind that Axel wished for a community-managed trademark. Be careful what you wish for. The Ecma TC39 renaming process (like just about any other TC39 decision process) was not community-driven, with a lengthy propose/listen/dispose cycle and some kind of open governance (however defined). Rather, we're still doing consensus among a mix of pay-to-play and not-for-profit standard body members, where members have to build trust among developers and work in Harmony, at least in the modern post-ES4 era. Renaming angst, which could become an issue or just blow up for some reason we can't foresee, is just one issue to address for the same of developer trust and harmony. I have never advocated design or naming by popular vote! I don’t care what ES7 is called, but I have to decide soon on what to put on the cover of an ES6 book and that cover will either be inspired by a 6 or by a 2015. This may seem trivial to others, but for me it is a real decision, which involves quite a bit of money. -- Dr. Axel Rauschmayer a...@rauschma.de rauschma.de ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Re: JavaScript 2015?
agreed and not only, it took years before various engines fully implemented ES5 so saying years later that an engine is fully compliant with a year in the past feels so wrong !!! Why is that? Where is the thread that explains this decision? I mean ... how should I call my browser that is not 100% compliant with HTML5, a fully compliant HTML 1997 browser ? Thanks for any sort of clarification On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 10:33 PM, Jaydson Gomes jayale...@gmail.com wrote: There's a lot of projects, articles and materials out there using the ES6 nomenclature. I don't think changing the name right now, close to the final release, and when people are already familiarized with the name is good approach. What is the point? Using the year in the version name remind me Windows. On Thu Jan 22 2015 at 8:14:28 PM Domenic Denicola d...@domenic.me wrote: From: Axel Rauschmayer [mailto:a...@rauschma.de] OK, good to know. Does it make sense to normally refer to it as “JavaScript 2015”, then? I don't really think so, but I don't have a storng opinion. Even ignoring books, I don’t share that attitude: for programming languages, a slower pace is good. Well, I'm sorry* the committee plans to disappoint you then :). * not actually sorry. * Establish modules (I’m seeing browser APIs based on promises, but none that are based on modules) This is just further reflection of the idea that spec version numbers are fictional and what matters is implementation progress. Promises are established because they've been implemented for a long time now. Modules aren't even close to being implemented anywhere. Saying they're both part of the same Word document is a true, but useless, statement. ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Re: Re: JavaScript 2015?
Hi, I now version does not matter but implementation and features matter, why then you dropped the Harmony name? It was using for a while, then ES6 was using for a while, now you wants new name. Sounds weird. Argument about features does not work. -- @nekrtemplar https://twitter.com/nekrtemplar ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Re: JavaScript 2015?
Andrea Giammarchi wrote: agreed and not only, it took years before various engines fully implemented ES5 so saying years later that an engine is fully compliant with a year in the past feels so wrong !!! Why is that? Where is the thread that explains this decision? I mean ... how should I call my browser that is not 100% compliant with HTML5, a fully compliant HTML 1997 browser ? Of course this question arose with respect to HTML5, which was nowhere near done (is it yet?) before marketeers at browser vendors started touting compatibility and various players hyped the orange shield. (And then Hixie said it was a living spec, version-free. :-P) The reason to label editions or releases is not to give marketeers some brand suffix with which to tout or hype. It's to organize a series of reasonably debugged specs that implementors have vetted and (partly or mostly) implemented. I agree it would be best if (partly or mostly) were fully, but that's not practical with big catch-up specs. With rapid-er release annual editions, it should be a goal, IMNSHO. That's the promised land we seek: implementor- and developer-tested draft matter that sticks and *then* gets the de-jure stamp of approval. /be ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Re: JavaScript 2015?
Brendan Eich wrote: The reason to label editions or releases is not to give marketeers some brand suffix with which to tout or hype. It's to organize a series of reasonably debugged specs that implementors have vetted and (partly or mostly) implemented. I agree it would be best if (partly or mostly) were fully, but that's not practical with big catch-up specs. With rapid-er release annual editions, it should be a goal, IMNSHO. That's the promised land we seek: implementor- and developer-tested draft matter that sticks and *then* gets the de-jure stamp of approval. The WHATWG living spec alternative eschews any series of spec snapshots, favoring just a bleeding edge that implementors constantly chase. This ideal has real-world issues! Perhaps Boris Zbarsky or someone else will comment on them. I'm out of time and not motivated, since for JS, we will promulgate an evolving series of spec editions, from ES6 = ES2015 onward at an annual cadence. Part of the benefit of the cadence, which resonates with faster software rapid-release schedules such as Chrome's and then Firefox's: you avoid schedule chicken by waving off anything unready till the next train. There's always another one coming, and no way to delay, so it doesn't pay to pretend to be more done than you really are. The rapid-release approach still requires skill and art to get right and avoid missing a train (always a set-back and embarrassment, as in real life). /be ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
RE: Re: JavaScript 2015?
Harmony = everything after ES4’s disharmony. ES5 is part of Harmony, as is ES 2015, as is ES 2016, and everything further. It’s not dropped. From: es-discuss [mailto:es-discuss-boun...@mozilla.org] On Behalf Of Arthur Stolyar Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 18:55 To: es-discuss@mozilla.org Subject: Re: Re: JavaScript 2015? Hi, I now version does not matter but implementation and features matter, why then you dropped the Harmony name? It was using for a while, then ES6 was using for a while, now you wants new name. Sounds weird. Argument about features does not work. -- @nekrtemplarhttps://twitter.com/nekrtemplar ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Re: JavaScript 2015?
I do the same as Kevin. --- R. Mark Volkmann Object Computing, Inc. On Jan 22, 2015, at 4:51 PM, Kevin Smith zenpars...@gmail.com wrote: FWIW, here's the rule of thumb that I tend to use: - When referring to the language in general, it's Javascript or JS. - When referring to a specific version of the language, it's ESx (e.g. ES5, ES6, ES7). - When referring to the specification itself (e.g. in proposals), it's ECMAScript. On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 4:07 PM, Axel Rauschmayer a...@rauschma.de wrote: I’m in the process of coming up with a good title for a book on ECMAScript 6. That begs the question: What is the best way to refer to ECMAScript 6? 1. The obvious choices: ECMAScript 6 or ES6. 2. Suggested by Allen [1]: JavaScript 2015. The advantage of #2 is that many people don’t know what ECMAScript 6 is. However, I’m worried that a book that has “2015” in its title will appear old in 2016. And the year scheme completely breaks with current tradition. I see two possibilities: * If there is a concerted effort to establish “JavaScript 2015” then I would support that and name my book accordingly. * Otherwise, JavaScript 6 is interesting: People who are aware of ECMAScript 6 will recognize it, but it will also mean something to people who don’t know what ECMAScript is. Is 2015, 2016, … really that much better than 6, 7, 8, … ? Would skipped years pose a problem for the former naming scheme? Axel [1] https://twitter.com/awbjs/status/558316031039381504 -- Dr. Axel Rauschmayer a...@rauschma.de rauschma.de ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Re: JavaScript 2015?
Two different issues: * I agree that renaming ES.next this late will be difficult * The smaller incremental releases have been planned for a while [1] and make sense: only if something is mostly done in most browsers does it become part of the standard. That is, releases are driven by features not the other way around. How often is debatable, but small and incremental is good. [1] https://github.com/tc39/ecma262 https://github.com/tc39/ecma262 (esp. link “this process document”) On 23 Jan 2015, at 01:11, Andrea Giammarchi andrea.giammar...@gmail.com wrote: I really don't understand ... Draft ECMA-262 6th Edition https://people.mozilla.org/~jorendorff/es6-draft.html https://people.mozilla.org/~jorendorff/es6-draft.html ECMAScript 6 support in Mozilla https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/New_in_JavaScript/ECMAScript_6_support_in_Mozilla https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/New_in_JavaScript/ECMAScript_6_support_in_Mozilla ES6 Rocks http://es6rocks.com/ http://es6rocks.com/ Books already published, years of blog-posts all over the internet educating developers about ES6 features. A clear deadline in terms of features instead of year since by the end of 2015 I am pretty sure no engine will be fully spec-compliant with the spec. What is this new back to year-versioning approach? Why suddenly we need a full new release each year when it took 15 years to have full ES3 support from all vendors? This feels like Adobe and the AS1 to AS3 era, the one that lost most developers due inability to catch up with anything and confusion across just specs. And that was a single vendor proposing new features for its language, I cannot imagine where this is going. /rant Best Regards On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 12:02 AM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.org mailto:bren...@mozilla.org wrote: Harmony refers to the whole post-ES4 consensus-based arc of specs from ES5 (neé 3.1) onward into the future, until done ;-). See https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2008-August/006837.html https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2008-August/006837.html ECMAScript Harmony never referred to a specific edition of ECMA-262, nor could it. The Harmony name is used in nearby sub-fields of programming languages and software, e.g., the open source Java libraries developed under Apache auspices. FWIW, ES6 is a known thing, in view of sites such as http://kangax.github.io/compat-table/es6/ http://kangax.github.io/compat-table/es6/ (which goes to 7 ;-). Still, we can probably educate people and spread the word that ES6 = ECMAScript 2015, ES7 = ECMAScript 2016, etc. All under the Harmony umbrella, I trust. /be Arthur Stolyar wrote: Hi, I now version does not matter but implementation and features matter, why then you dropped the Harmony name? It was using for a while, then ES6 was using for a while, now you wants new name. Sounds weird. Argument about features does not work. ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org mailto:es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss -- Dr. Axel Rauschmayer a...@rauschma.de rauschma.de ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Re: JavaScript 2015?
JavaScript X === EcmaScript Y :- X === Y + 2009 Y = 6; On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 4:17 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.org wrote: Andrea Giammarchi wrote: I really don't understand ... I'm pretty sure you do understand -- you just don't like it. The annual cycle may fail, but that would be bad. If it works out, we could still continue with ES6, 7, 8, etc. I'm leery of revolutionary fanaticism of the kind that led the French revolutionaries to invent new month names. Perhaps we're overreaching by declaring ES2015 before we've even wrapped up ES6, never mind implemented all of it in top browsers! You could be calling b.s. on this, please tell me if I'm warm. Anyway, I agree ES6 is out there. I cited kangax.github.io, and of course you're right, there are other sites and tutorials. The ES5/6/... pattern won't go away over night, no matter what bloody revolutionaries try to enact :-|. This should keep everyone from charging ahead with renaming right now. We need to socialize the annuals idea more, and actually hit the schedule. At that point we *will* have ES6 = ES2015, ES7 = (probably) 2016, etc. -- twice the number of names to keep straight. /be ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss -- Text by me above is hereby placed in the public domain Cheers, --MarkM ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Re: JavaScript 2015?
Anyone want to venture a guess on what percentage of JavaScript developers (and then, from there, developers who use other languages) have heard of ES or ECMAScript? —ravi ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Re: JavaScript 2015?
Harmony refers to the whole post-ES4 consensus-based arc of specs from ES5 (neé 3.1) onward into the future, until done ;-). See https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2008-August/006837.html ECMAScript Harmony never referred to a specific edition of ECMA-262, nor could it. The Harmony name is used in nearby sub-fields of programming languages and software, e.g., the open source Java libraries developed under Apache auspices. FWIW, ES6 is a known thing, in view of sites such as http://kangax.github.io/compat-table/es6/ (which goes to 7 ;-). Still, we can probably educate people and spread the word that ES6 = ECMAScript 2015, ES7 = ECMAScript 2016, etc. All under the Harmony umbrella, I trust. /be Arthur Stolyar wrote: Hi, I now version does not matter but implementation and features matter, why then you dropped the Harmony name? It was using for a while, then ES6 was using for a while, now you wants new name. Sounds weird. Argument about features does not work. ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Re: JavaScript 2015?
I really don't understand ... Draft ECMA-262 6th Edition https://people.mozilla.org/~jorendorff/es6-draft.html ECMAScript 6 support in Mozilla https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/New_in_JavaScript/ECMAScript_6_support_in_Mozilla ES6 Rocks http://es6rocks.com/ Books already published, years of blog-posts all over the internet educating developers about ES6 features. A clear deadline in terms of features instead of year since by the end of 2015 I am pretty sure no engine will be fully spec-compliant with the spec. What is this new back to year-versioning approach? Why suddenly we need a full new release each year when it took 15 years to have full ES3 support from all vendors? This feels like Adobe and the AS1 to AS3 era, the one that lost most developers due inability to catch up with anything and confusion across just specs. And that was a single vendor proposing new features for its language, I cannot imagine where this is going. /rant Best Regards On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 12:02 AM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.org wrote: Harmony refers to the whole post-ES4 consensus-based arc of specs from ES5 (neé 3.1) onward into the future, until done ;-). See https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2008-August/006837.html ECMAScript Harmony never referred to a specific edition of ECMA-262, nor could it. The Harmony name is used in nearby sub-fields of programming languages and software, e.g., the open source Java libraries developed under Apache auspices. FWIW, ES6 is a known thing, in view of sites such as http://kangax.github.io/compat-table/es6/ (which goes to 7 ;-). Still, we can probably educate people and spread the word that ES6 = ECMAScript 2015, ES7 = ECMAScript 2016, etc. All under the Harmony umbrella, I trust. /be Arthur Stolyar wrote: Hi, I now version does not matter but implementation and features matter, why then you dropped the Harmony name? It was using for a while, then ES6 was using for a while, now you wants new name. Sounds weird. Argument about features does not work. ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Re: JavaScript 2015?
Andrea Giammarchi wrote: I really don't understand ... I'm pretty sure you do understand -- you just don't like it. The annual cycle may fail, but that would be bad. If it works out, we could still continue with ES6, 7, 8, etc. I'm leery of revolutionary fanaticism of the kind that led the French revolutionaries to invent new month names. Perhaps we're overreaching by declaring ES2015 before we've even wrapped up ES6, never mind implemented all of it in top browsers! You could be calling b.s. on this, please tell me if I'm warm. Anyway, I agree ES6 is out there. I cited kangax.github.io, and of course you're right, there are other sites and tutorials. The ES5/6/... pattern won't go away over night, no matter what bloody revolutionaries try to enact :-|. This should keep everyone from charging ahead with renaming right now. We need to socialize the annuals idea more, and actually hit the schedule. At that point we *will* have ES6 = ES2015, ES7 = (probably) 2016, etc. -- twice the number of names to keep straight. /be ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Re: JavaScript 2015?
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 ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Re: JavaScript 2015?
Apologies, Dr. Axel indeed. So if I understood correctly, a title cannot contain ES6 or ECMAScript name in it at all? Or not even the JavaScript bit? More confusion :D On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 12:39 AM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.org wrote: 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 ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Re: JavaScript 2015?
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
Re: JavaScript 2015?
so more book authors concerned with the year-name choice: https://twitter.com/angustweets/status/558425590928113664 now I am curious to know how come all books out there have JavaScript in the title but AFAIK Oracle is not even mentioned ... is Oracle being very permissive or a book title should really **not** contain the JavaScript bit ? Thanks again, I am writing one these days and no idea where to find these info. Best Regards On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 12:46 AM, Axel Rauschmayer a...@rauschma.de wrote: This reminds me: Axel (not Alex) cannot recommend JavaScript 2015 to anything near the Ecma standard, because trademark. :-/ Ah, good point. It’d be lovely if whoever owns the trademark now (Oracle?) could donate it to the community. Or the community buys it via crowd-funded money. -- Dr. Axel Rauschmayer a...@rauschma.de rauschma.de ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Re: JavaScript 2015?
Name names. Who's idea was this? :) On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 4:53 PM, Axel Rauschmayer a...@rauschma.de 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 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: 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 ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Re: JavaScript 2015?
Andrea Giammarchi wrote: Apologies, Dr. Axel indeed. So if I understood correctly, a title cannot contain ES6 or ECMAScript name in it at all? Or not even the JavaScript bit? More confusion :D Don't exaggerate. I clearly addressed Axel and only with respect to JavaScript 2015, as cited below. /be On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 12:39 AM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.org mailto:bren...@mozilla.org wrote: ... This reminds me: Axel (not Alex) cannot recommend JavaScript 2015 to anything near the Ecma standard, because trademark. :-/ ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Re: JavaScript 2015?
I wouldn't hold my breath. Sun was not ever in the mood, even when I checked while at Mozilla just before the Oracle acquisition closed. Also, the community cannot own a trademark. Trademarks must be defended, or you lose them. This arguably has happened to JavaScript. Perhaps the best course is to find out (the hard way) whether this is so. /be Axel Rauschmayer wrote: This reminds me: Axel (not Alex) cannot recommend JavaScript 2015 to anything near the Ecma standard, because trademark. :-/ Ah, good point. It’d be lovely if whoever owns the trademark now (Oracle?) could donate it to the community. Or the community buys it via crowd-funded money. -- Dr. Axel Rauschmayer a...@rauschma.de mailto:a...@rauschma.de rauschma.de ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Re: JavaScript 2015?
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 a...@rauschma.de mailto:a...@rauschma.de 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 nekr.fab...@gmail.com mailto: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 mailto:a...@rauschma.de rauschma.de http://rauschma.de ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org mailto:es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Re: JavaScript 2015?
2015-01-23 2:02 GMT+02:00 Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.org: Harmony refers to the whole post-ES4 consensus-based arc of specs from ES5 (neé 3.1) onward into the future, until done ;-). See https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2008-August/006837.html ECMAScript Harmony never referred to a specific edition of ECMA-262, nor could it. The Harmony name is used in nearby sub-fields of programming languages and software, e.g., the open source Java libraries developed under Apache auspices. Good to know, thank you. My commend was kinda raged. But I still think it is weird thing to change name right now. Also, all those details about Harmony are not (or were) well known, because at a time of popularity of Harmony keyword all referred to it as next JavaScript/ECMAScript. That was exactly about features, not versions. Also, it seems that right now all still refers to features -- browsers implement them one by one, people talks about parts of specs not about whole thing. Yes, it sounds reasonable to move away from versions. But for now ES6 is already promoted, may be not specially but it is. For me it seems like stick up to Harmony would be better idea. Or let's go to Microsoft way and call it ECMAScript One (joke). -- @nekrtemplar https://twitter.com/nekrtemplar ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Re: JavaScript 2015?
I've read after sending last email the rationale but I am still not sure continuous specs integration should be related with the year. 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 ) I do like the idea of having more frequent rolling releases, but yet I don't know why year-naming would be the choice. 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 Your book though, won't be so interesting in few months, users also pay a lot of extra and unnecessary attention to a year in a name ... things will feel outdated before will be even implemented by some vendor. Weird choice, not my cup of tea for sure. Best Regards On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 12:17 AM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.org wrote: Andrea Giammarchi wrote: I really don't understand ... I'm pretty sure you do understand -- you just don't like it. The annual cycle may fail, but that would be bad. If it works out, we could still continue with ES6, 7, 8, etc. I'm leery of revolutionary fanaticism of the kind that led the French revolutionaries to invent new month names. Perhaps we're overreaching by declaring ES2015 before we've even wrapped up ES6, never mind implemented all of it in top browsers! You could be calling b.s. on this, please tell me if I'm warm. Anyway, I agree ES6 is out there. I cited kangax.github.io, and of course you're right, there are other sites and tutorials. The ES5/6/... pattern won't go away over night, no matter what bloody revolutionaries try to enact :-|. This should keep everyone from charging ahead with renaming right now. We need to socialize the annuals idea more, and actually hit the schedule. At that point we *will* have ES6 = ES2015, ES7 = (probably) 2016, etc. -- twice the number of names to keep straight. /be ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Re: JavaScript 2015?
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: 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 ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Re: JavaScript 2015?
This reminds me: Axel (not Alex) cannot recommend JavaScript 2015 to anything near the Ecma standard, because trademark. :-/ Ah, good point. It’d be lovely if whoever owns the trademark now (Oracle?) could donate it to the community. Or the community buys it via crowd-funded money. -- Dr. Axel Rauschmayer a...@rauschma.de rauschma.de ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Re: JavaScript 2015?
btw, just to answer your picks, I think this ML and ECMA in general has done a very good job last few years. I've heard the delivery, delivery, delivery story before and I haven't seen a single case where that translated into more quality as outcome. The label behind the year-name convention is not convenient for anyone: 1. books will look either older than they actually are or crystal-ball oriented (at least for less familiar users eyes) 2. for years we'll have to explain how to convert an ES version to the year and why at the beginning this was not a year-based thing 3. some year might be the alignment year where only one major feature goes out but it goes out the right way ... how'd you explain that ES 20XX ? 4. you mentioned ES 3.1 instead of ES5 ... that's just **good** ... if we need intermediate changes why not, we have officially a 5.1 too I don't remember anyone complaining there Having major release forced on year basis feels far away from agile or continuous integration principles, so yeah: year-name to define deadlines is bad because of the year-label thing, and because of the concept behind. We have numerous sites showing the current implementation status of current specs or even future one ... it's already difficult to understand who supports what, having must release this year versions out there will make the scene look like a bingo. This is probably just me playing the crystal-ball rant part but what bothers me the most is that until today I've never heard about this new trend/idea/decision. I don't think I've missed notes or threads, if so, please point them out, if not, please explain where these decisions come from if that's possible. Maybe me or others could follow that channel too? Or maybe not, but it would be nice to eventually know it. Best Regards On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 12:39 AM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.org wrote: 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 ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
RE: JavaScript 2015?
I believe the cutover was decided in the September 25 meeting. From: Brendan Eichmailto:bren...@mozilla.org Sent: 2015-01-22 20:35 To: Angus Crollmailto:anguscr...@gmail.com Cc: Arthur Stolyarmailto:nekr.fab...@gmail.com; es-discuss listmailto:es-discuss@mozilla.org Subject: Re: JavaScript 2015? 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 a...@rauschma.de mailto:a...@rauschma.de 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 nekr.fab...@gmail.com mailto: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 mailto:a...@rauschma.de rauschma.de http://rauschma.de ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org mailto:es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Re: JavaScript 2015?
Domenic Denicola wrote: I believe the cutover was decided in the September 25 meeting. I must have missed it if so -- do the notes record it? As Andreas Rossberg points out, ES6 will take years to be fully implemented. The more we speculate (lay bets), the bigger our potential losses. At this point, I personally want to see ES6 more spec'ed *and* implemented (not saying it's not spec'ed fully, the lag is on the implementation side -- but that can feed back on the spec). Anything further, even a simple (hah!) thing like naming, seems somewhere between good intentions to try out on the wider community and hubris. Let's avoid the latter. I think we're soaking in the former. /be ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Re: JavaScript 2015?
I think JavaScript 6 will only make things more confusing (remember JavaScript 1.7, 1.8, etc. in Mozilla?). More and more people learn what ECMAScript is. ES6 / ECMAScript 6 seems the most appropriate (and least surprising) name. -- kangax On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 10:07 PM, Axel Rauschmayer a...@rauschma.de wrote: I’m in the process of coming up with a good title for a book on ECMAScript 6. That begs the question: What is the best way to refer to ECMAScript 6? 1. The obvious choices: ECMAScript 6 or ES6. 2. Suggested by Allen [1]: JavaScript 2015. The advantage of #2 is that many people don’t know what ECMAScript 6 is. However, I’m worried that a book that has “2015” in its title will appear old in 2016. And the year scheme completely breaks with current tradition. I see two possibilities: * If there is a concerted effort to establish “JavaScript 2015” then I would support that and name my book accordingly. * Otherwise, JavaScript 6 is interesting: People who are aware of ECMAScript 6 will recognize it, but it will also mean something to people who don’t know what ECMAScript is. Is 2015, 2016, … really that much better than 6, 7, 8, … ? Would skipped years pose a problem for the former naming scheme? Axel [1] https://twitter.com/awbjs/status/558316031039381504 -- Dr. Axel Rauschmayer a...@rauschma.de rauschma.de ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
