Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Kaz Kylheku Newsgroups: comp.lang.javascript,comp.lang.c Subject: Re: "i = i|0" Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 19:20:33 +0000 (UTC) Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server Lines: 34 Message-ID: <20140612120902.543@kylheku.com> References: <44f393c9-8b85-4da8-8618-6b11dd3954b2@googlegroups.com> <5398CC30.9020706@verizon.net> <2078529.Slc7CH7YZo@PointedEars.de> <2122350.lP4zVSTnZj@PointedEars.de> <5399bcdc.21305859@news.xs4all.nl> <1949488.inRLtfabsd@PointedEars.de> <5399f832$0$6617$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: X+c6YNb3AaWMPA3YfA4opg.user.speranza.aioe.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org User-Agent: slrn/pre1.0.0-18 (Linux) X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.javascript:24786 comp.lang.c:45877 On 2014-06-12, Christoph Michael Becker wrote: > Keith Thompson wrote: >| For historical reasons, the term “javascript” is used herein as a >| shorthand for “ECMAScript-based programming languages”. Note that not >| all uses of that term here are correct. For example, there are >| instances where using “DOM” instead would have been correct. This >| will be fixed in a later revision. > > I agree that it is preferable to eschew the term "javascript" to avoid > potential confusion. monster.com search for "JavaScript": 631 JavaScript jobs matched your search monster.com search for "ECMAScript" *crickets* careers.stackoverflow.com search for "JavaScript" 932 jobs for "JavaScript" careers.stackoverflow.com search for "ECMAScript" 2 jobs for ECMAScript It's safe to say that pretty much nobody in the real world gives a fuck about "ECMAScript". Brendan Eich: "ECMAScript was always an unwanted trade name that sounds like a skin disease". Amen.