> 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
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
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
>
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:
>
>>
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
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,
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,
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,
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
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:
>
>
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
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
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:
>
13 matches
Mail list logo