Re: [ small request - Javascript for javaing]

2016-01-01 Thread /#!/JoePea
> We use it because we have to, not because we like it , so deep down we wish for a more standard language. Nope, I use it because I love it. The language is way better than Java in my opinion (and I have really good experience with both, backend and frontend). Also, telling Python developers to

Re: [ small request - Javascript for javaing]

2016-01-01 Thread Sander Deryckere
There are also a lot of coders working in JavaScript (see http://githut.info/), and JavaScript can also be used as a backend (see node.js). So why shouldn't Java become a subset of JavaScript? The ES design makes it very clear to not "break the web". That means that any code working today, should

Re: [ small request - Javascript for javaing]

2016-01-01 Thread Mark S. Miller
This discussion does not belong on this list. Please take it elsewhere. On Fri, Jan 1, 2016 at 10:42 AM, Sander Deryckere wrote: > There are also a lot of coders working in JavaScript (see > http://githut.info/), and JavaScript can also be used as a backend (see >

Re: [ small request - Javascript for javaing]

2016-01-01 Thread 李白|字一日
it is more python than more java today:) and less javascript. 2016-01-01 23:52 GMT+08:00 Mark S. Miller : > This discussion does not belong on this list. Please take it elsewhere. > > > On Fri, Jan 1, 2016 at 10:42 AM, Sander Deryckere > wrote: > >>

Re: [ small request - Javascript for javaing]

2016-01-01 Thread Florian Bösch
On Fri, Jan 1, 2016 at 3:51 PM, Norbert Korodi wrote: > > As I reread my letter I have to admit that I might sound arrogant / > offensive (and I am sorry for that , at least I am honest ) but I am really > tired of reading about "new"-ish es features which are only new

Re: [ small request - Javascript for javaing]

2016-01-01 Thread Bradley Meck
JavaScript (an implementation of EcmaScript) has different semantics than Java, it is not a subset and so it would break all sorts of backwards compatibility (and lose some functionality) to act as if it is a subset of Java. Basically, the languages are not directly related so it is not possible,

Re: [ small request - Javascript for javaing]

2016-01-01 Thread Norbert Korodi
On Fri, Jan 1, 2016 at 4:56 PM, 李白|字一日 wrote: > it is more python than more java today:) > and less javascript. > > > 2016-01-01 23:52 GMT+08:00 Mark S. Miller : > >> This discussion does not belong on this list. Please take it elsewhere.. >> > It does,

Re: [ small request - Javascript for javaing]

2016-01-01 Thread Bradley Meck
Actually if you look up the history of JS it is only called "Java"Script because Java was popular, it originally was called LiveScript but due to political pressures it was named JavaScript. The underpinning semantics of the language are vastly different, with the ideas of first class functions,

Re: [ small request - Javascript for javaing]

2016-01-01 Thread Herby Vojčík
Maybe we should rename the colloquial name of the language, to give clear signal to this kind of Javaist that Java should not have been there at first place and JS is something else. To retain .js extension it should be some J-word, like JumboScript, JiffyScript, JiveScript or something like

Re: [ small request - Javascript for javaing]

2016-01-01 Thread Bob Myers
Please don't feed the troll. Norbert: If you don't want to use JS, don't use it. If reading about bothers you, stop reading about it. Meanwhile, stop polluting the ML. Bob On Fri, Jan 1, 2016 at 11:35 PM, Angel Java Lopez wrote: > Regarding Norbert Korodi sentence: > >

Re: [ small request - Javascript for javaing]

2016-01-01 Thread Angel Java Lopez
Regarding Norbert Korodi sentence: "I just wanted You guys to know that nowadays js / es is not really in a good shape. We use it because we have to, not because we like it , so deep down we wish for a more standard language." Well... this topic could rise a flame war about programming

Re: [ small request - Javascript for javaing]

2016-01-01 Thread Fabrício Matté
On Fri, Jan 1, 2016 at 3:47 PM, Herby Vojčík wrote: > Maybe we should rename the colloquial name of the language, to give clear > signal to this kind of Javaist that Java should not have been there at > first place and JS is something else. To retain .js extension it should be

Re: [ small request - Javascript for javaing]

2016-01-01 Thread Brendan Eich
Thanks, Bob. Always good advice. Turns out I'm a list admin still. I will set mod bits if necessary. This has been necessary only a few times over the past ten years. Let's leave this thread to die, please. Happy New Year! /be On Fri, Jan 1, 2016 at 10:06 AM Bob Myers wrote: >