I like that explanation. I get it now. Thanks. One more quick question though, what is a let-block, in general? Thanks. That really does make it a lot easier to understand.
Brett On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 6:04 AM, Keryx Web <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Brett Patterson skrev: > >> I am sorry, but I must ask. Are you saying that the term JavaScript is >> owned by Sun? Or just the Java part? And, yes, JavaScript is implemented in >> Internet Explorer. >> >> > I see that your question has already been answered. I will give some > additional points. > > Mocha was Brendan Eich's internal name during initial development at > Netscape. It was renamed LiveScript by him and his fellow enginers, but > changed to JavaScript by the *marketing* department. > > JScript in MSIE 6 and 7 is *roughly* comparable to JavaScript 1.2 and to > ECMAScript 3.0. > > There is a document, produced by MS, that in very high detail outlines how > JScript, and other browsers JS engines, differs from the spec. It is > available at https://developer.mozilla.org/en/JavaScript > > The JavaScript support in Safari, Google Chrome and Opera is *roughly* > comparable to JavaScript 1.5, and some parts of JavaScript 1.6. > > (Note: 99 % of the time when one curses the differences between browsers, > it is not because of their deviations from each other in Java/J/EcmaScript, > but how they differ from each other on the DOM.) > > Mozilla is allowed by the ECMAScript spec to develop JavaScript as a > superset to ECMAScript, and indeed they have. JavaScript 1.8 contains quite > a few features that (probably) will not even make it into ECMAScript 3.1 > (generators, iterators, let-blocks - personally I really like let blocks!). > > A few years ago Netscape proposed a JavaScript 2.0 version. Many features > from that proposal has made it into ActionScript and into JScript.NET (used > on the server). ECMAScript 4.0 that was being worked upon altered from the > original JS 2.0 proposal in some ways. That work has however been halted. > One group, led by Mozilla and Adobe, wanted to *add* to ECMAScript in > radical ways. One group, led by MS and Yahoo (Doug Crockford), wanted > primarily a *subset*, getting rid of "the bad parts". They soon added > features, though, and the language was in essence forked. > > A compromise has been reached. "ECMAScript Harmony" will most probably be > released as version 4, but not for a couple of years. And it will differ > from the ES 4 proposal as stood in June. > > It is the intention of the EcmaScript working group to release ES 3.1 next > year, at which time they hope to have two interoperable and complete > implementations. One will most probably be SpiderMonkey (Mozilla) and the > other might be V8. > > The new ES 4, i.e. "Harmony", will probably not see the light of day until > 2010 or 2011. > > > Lars Gunther > > > ******************************************************************* > List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm > Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm > Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ******************************************************************* > > ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *******************************************************************
