* Axel Rauschmayer wrote:
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
[...] asking Oracle [...]
If they both read it and reply (you have a decent chance of getting one or
the other, both is unlikely).
On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 3:47 PM, Isiah Meadows impinb...@gmail.com wrote:
@all
Should we rename this list to es-bikeshed? Seems to fit with the theme
here.
@all
Should we rename this list to es-bikeshed? Seems to fit with the theme
here. ;)
In all reality, I'm strongly considering asking Oracle about the specific
enforcement status of the JavaScript trademark. If (and when) I do, I'll
forward as much information as I can here.
Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
I can only speak about ES5 (don't know about ES1,2,3 but a I'm pretty sure
there wasn't a year long bake period before each of those).
Nope.
/be
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
On Jan 23, 2015, at 12:08 AM, Aaron Frost wrote:
Trying to understand the cadenced release process. In the past a Final Draft
would be cut and allowed to bake for 12 months before an Official Approval by
the Ecma General Assembly. Is that 12-month bake still going to be in place?
I can
On Jan 23, 2015, at 10:11 AM, Kevin Smith wrote:
Feb 2-19, Editor frantically incorporates Jan. meeting technical changes
No pressure! : )
I should have added: and dozen of new typos
Come on, where's your programmer's optimism?
I said dozens rather hundreds
On Jan 23, 2015, at 2:15 AM, Andrea Giammarchi wrote:
Thanks Allen,
same as Brendan, always on the HTML version. My bad.
However, it's not perfectly clear where the living standard name has been
decided as such.
Feb 2-19, Editor frantically incorporates Jan. meeting technical changes
No pressure! : )
(and thanks)
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Feb 2-19, Editor frantically incorporates Jan. meeting technical changes
No pressure! : )
I should have added: and dozen of new typos
Come on, where's your programmer's optimism?
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
On Jan 23, 2015, at 9:41 AM, Kevin Smith wrote:
Feb 2-19, Editor frantically incorporates Jan. meeting technical changes
No pressure! : )
I should have added: and dozen of new typos
Allen
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
Trying to understand the cadenced release process. In the past a Final
Draft would be cut and allowed to bake for 12 months before an Official
Approval by the Ecma General Assembly. Is that 12-month bake still going to
be in place?
If this 12-month bake is still around, that would mean that the
Thanks Allen,
same as Brendan, always on the HTML version. My bad.
However, it's not perfectly clear where the living standard name has been
decided as such.
With all little things that could have made in ES6 but nobody wanted to
rush in, realizing at 2 months from the final spec that the name
Aaron Frost wrote:
Trying to understand the cadenced release process. In the past a Final
Draft would be cut and allowed to bake for 12 months before an
Official Approval by the Ecma General Assembly. Is that 12-month bake
still going to be in place?
More like six months, really -- Allen can
For what it matters, I've summarized my thoughts and described the problem
here:
http://webreflection.blogspot.de/2015/01/javascript-and-living-ecmascript.html
I know here it looks like I've been just a drama queen, but I think naming
milestones are a better approach and brought better results to
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 1:05 AM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.org wrote:
Andrea Giammarchi wrote:
I mean ... how should I call my browser that is not 100% compliant with
HTML5, a fully compliant HTML 1997 browser ?
Of course this question arose with respect to HTML5, which was nowhere near
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
Windows.
On Thu Jan 22 2015 at 8:14:28 PM Domenic Denicola d...@domenic.me wrote:
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
with ES6 or avoid the ES at all and use JS 2015
This reminds me: Axel (not Alex) cannot recommend JavaScript
2015 to anything near the Ecma standard, because trademark. :-/
/be
-- @nekrtemplar https://twitter.com/nekrtemplar
-- Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
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 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:
:32:48 -0800
Subject: Re: JavaScript 2015?
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
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
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.
...@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 is good.
Well, I'm sorry
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
Subject: Re: Re: JavaScript 2015?
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
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 ECMAScript 6 is.
However, I’m worried that a book that has “2015” in its
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
JavaScript 2015 to
anything near the Ecma standard, because trademark. :-/
/be
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
exactly ES6, we will have time to
align the ESX where X = previous ESX +2009 concept.
to Doctor Alex, at this point I think you should really stick with ES6 or
avoid the ES at all and use JS 2015
This reminds me: Axel (not Alex) cannot recommend JavaScript 2015 to
anything near the Ecma
will have time to align
the ESX where X = previous ESX +2009 concept.
to Doctor Alex, at this point I think you should really stick with ES6 or
avoid the ES at all and use JS 2015
This reminds me: Axel (not Alex) cannot recommend JavaScript 2015 to
anything near the Ecma standard, because
really **not** contain the JavaScript bit
?
Thanks again, I am writing one these days and no idea where to find these
info.
Best Regards
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 12:46 AM, Axel Rauschmayer a...@rauschma.de wrote:
This reminds me: Axel (not Alex) cannot recommend JavaScript 2015 to
anything near
JavaScript 2015 to
anything near the Ecma standard, because trademark. :-/
/be
--
@nekrtemplar https://twitter.com/nekrtemplar
--
Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
a...@rauschma.de
rauschma.de
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
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 below
is to find out (the hard
way) whether this is so.
/be
Axel Rauschmayer wrote:
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
stick with ES6 or avoid the ES at all and use JS 2015
This reminds me: Axel (not Alex) cannot recommend JavaScript
2015 to anything near the Ecma standard, because trademark. :-/
/be
--
@nekrtemplar https://twitter.com/nekrtemplar
--
Dr. Axel
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
where X = previous ESX +2009 concept.
to Doctor Alex, at this point I think you should really stick with ES6 or
avoid the ES at all and use JS 2015
This reminds me: Axel (not Alex) cannot recommend JavaScript 2015 to
anything near the Ecma standard, because trademark
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
stick with ES6 or
avoid the ES at all and use JS 2015
This reminds me: Axel (not Alex) cannot recommend JavaScript 2015 to
anything near the Ecma standard, because trademark. :-/
/be
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https
@mozilla.org
Subject: Re: JavaScript 2015?
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
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
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
a...@rauschma.de wrote:
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
60 matches
Mail list logo
