On Jan 21, 2015, at 6:09 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 6:01 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.com
wrote:
On Jan 21, 2015, at 2:09 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
// old ES5 code
function f(allegedDate) {
if (({}).toString.call(allegedDate) === [object
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**.
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
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
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
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
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
Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
On Dec 24, 2014, at 1:49 PM, Kevin Smith wrote:
Here is the summary:
Total Files Read: 11038
Files Containing Explicit 'enumerable: false': 149
Occurrences of 'enumerable: false' (and variants): 206
I love this kind of analysis - thanks!
My
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.
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
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
On Jan 22, 2015, at 5:03 PM, Francisco Tolmasky wrote:
Apologies as I believe this has been discussed before (
https://esdiscuss.org/topic/block-scope-direct-non-strict-eval ), but just
trying to get some clarification as to the current state of things, and have
not been able to find this
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:
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
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
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.
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
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
Herby Vojčík wrote:
Personally, I have always believed we are going down the wrong path by
switching (from the original max-in class design) to making methods
defined within a class definition enumerable.
Yes, please, if possible, go back to non-enum methods. I was writing
at that time as
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?
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Apologies as I believe this has been discussed before (
https://esdiscuss.org/topic/block-scope-direct-non-strict-eval ), but just
trying to get some clarification as to the current state of things, and
have not been able to find this information (in a format I can understand).
Namely, I’m curious
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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.
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
Firefox's engine has an ES4-era prototype `let` implementation, a bug to
fix by implementing ES6 semantics.
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=950547
/be
Francisco Tolmasky wrote:
Apologies as I believe this has been discussed before (
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
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
Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
On Jan 21, 2015, at 6:09 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 6:01 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
al...@wirfs-brock.com mailto:al...@wirfs-brock.com wrote:
On Jan 21, 2015, at 2:09 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
// old ES5 code
function
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
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
53 matches
Mail list logo
