Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.javascript > #20640

ECMAScript (was: client side hour glass icon?)

Show key headers only | View raw

John Harris wrote:

> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> At the risk of feeding a troll, yet another attempt to explain this to
>> you.
> 
> Ad hominem, as usual.

Neither one applies.  But if the shoe fits…

>> John Harris wrote:
>>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>> John Harris wrote:
>>>>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> wrote:
>>>>>   <snip>
>>>>>> There is no javascript: <http://PointedEars.de/es-matrix>
>>>>>   <snip>
>>>>> 
>>>>> To new readers, what Thomas means is :
>>>>> 
>>>>> a) If you think 'javascript' is one language then you are wrong. There
>>>>> are several different environments using the same core language,
>>>>> ECMAScript, and numerous differences between products and versions in
>>>>> the same environment.
>>>>
>>>> No, you still don't get it.
>>> 
>>> In what way have I misrepresented your views ?
>>
>> They are not views.
> 
> Oxford Dictionary of English :-
>   view (3) : a particular way of considering or regarding something;
> an attitude or opinion. Example : strong political views.

But it is neither an attitude nor an opinion.

>>>   Remember, you have written
>>
>> You (of all people) should not presume to remind me of that which I know
>> so well.
> 
> So I should just have written "You have written" […]

Yes.
 
>>> "Some people talk about a programming language they call ?javascript?.
>>
>> (Actually, there are typographical double-quotes in the original text.)
>>
>>> This is supposed to be one fully specified and universally implemented
>>> programming language" ...
>>
>> Perhaps I chose an ambiguous wording; English is not my native language.
>> It means: It is “supposed to be” that in those people's understanding
>> of the topic, but actually it is not
> 
> Which is what I understood you to say. There was nothing wrong with
> the English, though perhaps a bit advanced for some parts of the
> world.

Thank you.

>> (because it does not exist as such). The comparison of implementations
>> vs. the standard and each other in the ECMAScript Support Matrix makes
>> that obvious.  (Another Matrix would show that much the same applies to
>> DOM implementations, although there, too, many previous differences
>> disappear with time while new ones emerge.)
> 
> Which is what my paraphrase said, though "using" could have been
> weakened to "purporting to use".

No, you have stated there would be one core language common to several 
different environments (with the subtext “*all* environments”).  This is a 
misinterpretation of what I said because I said the opposite: There is _not_ 
such a language.

>>>   and
>>> "there are several implementations of ECMAScript that are widely
>>> distributed, primarily through web browsers".
>>
>> “Several (*different*) *implementations* of *ECMAScript*”; _not_ “the
>> same core language”.
> 
> "Core language" is the ECMA 262 terminology.

But it is used there with another meaning than you use it.

>>Surely you can see that a different implementation means a
>>*different* (core) language, particularly in the case of ECMAScript.  The
>>differences between the ECMAScript implementations
> 
> If an implementation doesn't obey some part of some issue of ECMA 262
> then it isn't implementing ECMAScript, even if it obeys most of it.

Incorrect, see the “Conformance” section.  Also, several implementors 
disagree with you, saying that they implemented ECMAScript, even though in 
some features of their implementations there are diversions from the (used 
Edition of the) standard that cannot be explained by the allowances in that 
section.

One must allow for the possibility of an “incomplete”, “not conforming” or 
“not fully conforming” implementation of ECMAScript because otherwise the 
term “conforming implementation” in the Specification contains redundancy, 
and no *reasonable* way of describing and discussing the connection between 
implementation and standard is left.

>> have nothing to do with different runtime environments (nowadays): You
>> can find Mozilla JavaScript in Mozilla browsers, SeaMonkey, and NES-
>> compatibles; Microsoft JScript in IE, WSH and IIS; Google V8 JavaScript
>> in Chromium, the Android browser component, and in node.js etc.
> 
> Yes, it's messy, isn't it.

It is the reason for and the natural result of the “Conformance” section in 
all versions and Editions of the ECMAScript Language Specification so far.

>> Also, features provided by a runtime environment, like a DOM
>> implementation, do not belong to the respective ECMAScript implementation
>> (the “core language”);
> 
> As ECMA 262 says :

Which Edition are you citing?

> "ECMAScript can provide core scripting capabilities for a variety of
> host environments, and therefore the core scripting language is
> specified in this document apart from any particular host
> environment."
> 
> In other words, a DOM or any other environment-manipulating stucture
> is not part of the core language, as you say, and as I said.

Yes.  But it also says that the “core scripting language” is an 
*implementation* of ECMAScript.  Keep in mind that there can only be 
*implementations* of ECMAScript, however they are called, in practice.
And implementations differ.  So contrary to what you stated (and how you 
misinterpreted my statements), there is _not_ *one* core language; there
are several that have a common root.
 
> Contrast this with C++ and Java where the standard libraries are
> specified as part of the language. The same could be said of Date
> objects.

The “standard library”, so to speak, of ECMAScript borrows from the Java API 
(particularly java.lang and java.util) because the first Edition was based 
on common features of JavaScript 1.1 and JScript 1.0. [0]  JavaScript was 
intended by Netscape to be a complement to Sun's Java; with a simpler, yet 
similar, syntax suitable for beginners, and to allow for programming in HTML 
documents which the Java plugin could not provide. [1][2]  JScript 1.0 and 
the MSHTML 3.0 DOM API (as you would call it today) both are the result of 
reverse engineering of JavaScript 1.0 (which contains the Netscape 2.0 DOM 
API, as you would call it today) [3], with Microsoft's extensions.

>> they are language-independent (with the historical exception of
>> JavaScript 1.0 to 1.3 in Netscape Navigator 2.0 to 4.x as the notion of a
>> “DOM” or “AOM” is a later development – at the time people were simply
>> talking about “DHTML”).
> 
> They may be specified in a language-independent way, but there aren't
> many example where the language is not something close to ECMAScript.

You have not seen enough examples.  I could name at least three programming 
languages in which DOM interfaces are implemented and used, that are _not_ 
ECMAScript implementations.  Indeed, if you search signed out for DOM 
interface names on Google, in many cases the *Java* API documentation is 
among the first hits.

>> HTH
> 
> Not really, you still haven't said where I didn't summarise your
> convictions.

They are not convictions either.  It is a mistake to demote facts to views, 
attitudes, opinions, or convictions because you cannot or do not want to 
deal with them.  Truth of reality, reality of truth.  That which is
gives you freedom.

_________
[0] Ecma International (Juni 1997). Standard ECMA-262 – ECMAScript: A
    general-purpose, cross-platform programming language.  Section 2.
    <http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/files/ECMA-ST-ARCH/ECMA-262,%201st%20edition,%20June%201997.pdf>
[1] Krill, Paul (2008-06-23). „JavaScript creator ponders past, future“.
    In: InfoWorld. Developer World.
    <http://www.infoworld.com/d/developer-world/javascript-creator-ponders-past-future-704>
    (retrieved 2011-12-22).
[2] Hamilton, Naomi (2008-07-31). „The A-Z of Programming Languages:
    JavaScript“. In: Computerworld. The A-Z of Programming Languages.
    <http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/255293/a-z_programming_languages_javascript/>
    (retrieved 2011-12-31)
[3] YUI Theater (2007). Douglas Crockford: The JavaScript Programming
    Language. Ca. 00:04:00.
    <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2ifWcnQs6M> (retrieved 2012-02-13).
-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not Cc: me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

Back to comp.lang.javascript | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

client side hour glass icon? SpreadTooThin <bjobrien62@gmail.com> - 2013-07-08 18:10 -0700
  Re: client side hour glass icon? "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2013-07-09 09:51 +0200
  Re: client side hour glass icon? Denis McMahon <denismfmcmahon@gmail.com> - 2013-07-09 08:53 +0000
    Re: client side hour glass icon? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-07-09 22:18 +0200
      Re: client side hour glass icon? Cezary Tomczyk <cezary.tomczyk@gmail.com> - 2013-07-10 08:20 +0200
        Re: client side hour glass icon? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-07-10 21:27 +0200
      Re: client side hour glass icon? John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2013-07-10 14:46 +0100
        Re: client side hour glass icon? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-07-10 15:57 +0200
          Pointless rants (Was: Re: client side hour glass icon?) "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi> - 2013-07-10 19:18 +0300
            Re: Pointless rants Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-07-10 19:45 +0200
          Re: client side hour glass icon? danca <ynnadrebyc@tiscalinet.it> - 2013-07-10 18:31 +0200
          Re: client side hour glass icon? John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2013-07-11 10:06 +0100
            Re: client side hour glass icon? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-07-11 18:32 +0200
              Re: client side hour glass icon? John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2013-07-12 16:28 +0100
                ECMAScript (was: client side hour glass icon?) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-07-12 21:12 +0200
                Re: ECMAScript (was: client side hour glass icon?) John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2013-07-13 17:01 +0100
  Re: client side hour glass icon? Danny <dann90038@gmail.com> - 2013-07-09 10:53 -0700

csiph-web