On 10/29/07, Lars T Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 10/29/07, Yehuda Katz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I couldn't quite determine this from the white-paper:
> >
> > If I define a class using the new class constructs, and do *not* make
> it
> > dynamic, will I still be able to add new pro
I was at that presentation. It was effectively a debate between John Resig,
who works for Mozilla, and Douglas Crockford, the "concerned" ECMA member
mentioned. Bottom line is that Doug wants to have it both ways. He wants
everyone to participate and discuss the language changes, but he rails on
th
On 10/29/07, Yehuda Katz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I couldn't quite determine this from the white-paper:
>
> If I define a class using the new class constructs, and do *not* make it
> dynamic, will I still be able to add new properties to the prototype object?
Yes.
> If so, doesn't that provid
I couldn't quite determine this from the white-paper:
If I define a class using the new class constructs, and do *not* make it
dynamic, will I still be able to add new properties to the prototype object?
If so, doesn't that provide a simple way to end-run around the entire
lock-down that the new c
On Oct 28, 2007, at 7:53 PM, Mark Miller wrote:
> I have now read the section of the overview document titled
> "Compatibility" and every embedded bold "Note:". Congratulations.
> Seriously.
Thanks. There are likely to be even fewer compatibility notes soon
(see http://bugs.ecmascript.org/ticke
On 10/28/07, Douglas Crockford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Robert Sayre wrote:
> > Fighting over the name is pointless. It's not a good name, and web
> > developers call it "JavaScript".
>
> The name is exactly the point. A new language should have a new name. The
> deltas
> from ES3 to the propo
Im sorry to post this here, after being a lurker for so long, but I just
had to respond.
I put my comment on my blog:
http://openajax.com/blog/2007/10/29/god-bless-scoble/
This is not SPAM: I do not use any Advertising or profit. This is only
to promote the OpenWeb and I wanted to make it public
On Oct 28, 2007, at 9:01 PM, liorean wrote:
> On the other hand they have a considerable mindshare and I think it
> would be
> more confusing if the name was changed to something entirely unknown.
I agree with all this. The comparison to C/C++ is fitting — both C++
and ES4 add a giant glob of
On 10/28/07, Mark Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > * Temper tantrums about the name.
> > (there's really nothing to negotiate, aiui)
>
> I don't understand your point. Both positions:
> * advocating that the name stay the same
> * advocating that the name be changed
> cannot be resolved by
On 10/28/07, Mark Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> .fromJSONString() is inappropriate as a method of String.
Oops. I meant .parseJSON().
On 10/28/07, Robert Sayre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10/28/07, Mark Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > However, Rebecca is related to the evil
On Oct 28, 2007, at 4:39 PM, Dan Scott wrote:
> Ah, fabulous - it seems that although the term "sprintf" appears in
> the wiki, it's highlighted and therefore doesn't turn up in a
> search for the term. And I was too dumb to search for "string
> format" -- thanks for letting me know that the
On 29/10/2007, Robert Sayre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Temper tantrums about the name.
>(there's really nothing to negotiate, aiui)
I can understand wanting to change the name for the reason Steve Yegge
mentions in "How to Ignore Marketing and Become Irrelevant in Two Easy
Steps" - Both J
On 10/28/07, Mark Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> However, Rebecca is related to the evil Allan of Microsoft, so perhaps
> responsibility based design is part of some evil corporate plot? Or
> maybe we should evaluate the logic of what people are saying
> independent of their corporate affili
On Oct 28, 2007, at 7:36 PM, Robert Sayre wrote:
> On 10/28/07, Douglas Crockford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> As responsible stewards of the language, we should...
>
> ...discuss technical issues. I encourage you to begin doing so.
I can see this escalating very quickly, so let me try to get
On 10/28/07, Robert Sayre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's not all disagreement, though. One aspect of Google Caja seems
> preferable to me: the JSON object. In fact, I would like the committee
> to drop the JSON methods on the object prototype in favor of letting
> host environments provide that
On 10/28/07, Douglas Crockford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> As responsible stewards of the language, we should...
...discuss technical issues. I encourage you to begin doing so.
--
Robert Sayre
"I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time."
Robert Sayre wrote:
> Fighting over the name is pointless. It's not a good name, and web
> developers call it "JavaScript".
The name is exactly the point. A new language should have a new name. The
deltas
from ES3 to the proposed language are larger than ES3 itself. Claims of
backward
compati
On 27/10/2007, Brendan Eich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Oct 27, 2007, at 11:06 AM, Dan Scott wrote:
>
> > Just following up on the discussion - since I've seen an
> > announcement that the spec for ES4 is now closed, does this mean
> > that a proposal for an addition of a standardized sprintf
On Oct 28, 2007, at 2:16 PM, Robert Sayre wrote:
On 10/28/07, Mark Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
But even if you have succeeded at integrating together more good
ideas
into a coherent language design than have many previous brilliant
language designers, I have another concern: Standards
On 10/28/07, Robert Sayre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> If the language is as radical and
> complicated departure as you say it is, it should be easy to find bugs
> in the design.
I should add: I have been following AdSafe and Google Caja with
interest. But I don't see how ES4 makes your subset a
On 10/28/07, Mark Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> But even if you have succeeded at integrating together more good ideas
> into a coherent language design than have many previous brilliant
> language designers, I have another concern: Standards bodies should
> not do de-novo design.
JS has e
Thank you all for your feedback. Yes, I understand that my "bad smell"
comment may have been less than helpful, though it hardly compares to
some of the ad hominem comments in some of the responses. I will spend
time reading the new overview paper; and I will post further feedback
as I go. In excha
On Oct 28, 2007, at 5:45 AM, David Teller wrote:
>Hi list,
>
> After reading the Outline document, I find myself wondering if
> there's
> a way to provide a type without any method for the user to manually
> create an inhabitant of that type ?
A class with a private constructor. See http:/
Hi,
First of all, I think making the reference implementation available to everyone
is a great idea. Thanks for that. Unfortunately, at this early stage, I think
the barriers too getting it running are too high for your average ECMAScripter
with only Windows experience. If one of the aims is to co
Hi list,
After reading the Outline document, I find myself wondering if there's
a way to provide a type without any method for the user to manually
create an inhabitant of that type ?
This is a technique commonly used in functional programming (and
sometimes used in Java/C#, too, I believe)
25 matches
Mail list logo
