Path: csiph.com!news.mixmin.net!weretis.net!feeder1.news.weretis.net!news.solani.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.javascript
Subject: Re: references to DOM parts
Date: Sun, 03 Jan 2016 17:25:26 +0100
Organization: PointedEars Software (PES)
Lines: 90
Message-ID: <3805462.TU5bcYnpMQ@PointedEars.de>
References: <DOM-20151230191146@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de> <1etso5kfd39eq$.19v3fhasifklp$.dlg@40tude.net> <XnsA58171C47E6C6eejj99@194.109.6.166> <ujxqdr50bbzz.hihpzuog4tj6.dlg@40tude.net> <n63lbk$kss$1@dont-email.me> <XnsA581C4A8C44BAeejj99@194.109.6.166> <n63snt$nrq$1@dont-email.me> <4457635.ebrsGVpr3F@PointedEars.de> <5689448f$0$23840$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>
Reply-To: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <cljs@PointedEars.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8Bit
X-Trace: solani.org 1451838327 30637 eJwFwYEBgDAIA7CXYNCynqMg/59ggqCzKwkmFhtCD74LkfQ9NvTKOqx3nxPTrqURaZL11Q8EjA/+ (3 Jan 2016 16:25:27 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@news.solani.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 3 Jan 2016 16:25:27 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: KNode/4.14.2
X-User-ID: eJwNyskBwDAIA7CVymXCOCng/Udo9VYYBJ2OgAeDsi98R71yY407VO/r7KspaoPmK/nIWRbnb9fWCxQ7NNQHdbAWDA==
Cancel-Lock: sha1:nlJymGB5dSNrUc+QG8MW7Q9TbYw=
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: eJwFwQkBwDAIA0BLvAHklG7xL6F36VDcCiQimRwMrR10PbkHewUtY39JSzrZ5hXql/YFFg8ILRBM
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.javascript:29121

</killfile>

The anti-social incompetent address munger “Luuk”, who stops by here only 
every other year, blathered nonsense again:

> On 01-01-16 03:32, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> There is no “Javascript”, so there are no “Javascript objects” and no
>> “Javascript-object garbage-collection” and so on.
> 
> Ok now, while some of us are talking Latin in this group, i will tkae
> the liberty of quoting a Dutch website....

You are not quoting simply “a Dutch website”, you are quoting the Dutch 
version of Wikipedia, which is a wiki – editable by virtually everyone, 
including *incompetent people*.  The record shows that Wikipedia articles on 
the topic are flawed.  The article you are quoting is no exception of that.
 
> source:
> https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECMAScript
> 
> quoot from site:
> ECMAScript is een scripttaal gedefinieerd door Ecma International
> (voorheen ECMA).

So far, so good.

> ECMAScript wordt zeer veel gebruikt, met name in de
> implementaties van ActionScript, JavaScript en JScript.

The second part is wrong.  ActionScript, JavaScript(s), and JScript are 
implementations of ECMAScript, not merely different names for it.  

Implementations of ECMAScript (also: ECMAScript implementations) differ from 
ECMAScript in that they exhibit *implementation-dependent behavior*; they 
are allowed to do so and still be called “conforming” within the boundaries 
defined by the standard (section “Conformance”).

As a result, ECMAScript implementations not only differ from ECMAScript; 
they *differ from one another*.

For example, ActionScript 2.0+ (which implement a proposal by Netscape to 
TC39 for ECMAScript Edition 4 that was later abandoned) have classes as in 
class-based inheritance, while more recent JavaScripts (Mozilla JavaScript 
and Google V8 JavaScript) have classes in a very different way, with 
different syntax.

ActionScript 2.0+ also supports static type-checking (with types such as int 
and double), while those JavaScripts support dynamic type-checking (with 
only one numeric data type, Number).

Mozilla JavaScript has the “let” statement since several years/versions, 
Google V8 JavaScript has gotten it only recently (with the version that 
implements this ECMAScript 2015 feature), and then it only works in the 
latter in strict mode.

*And so on.*

> De basis voor ECMAScript was JavaScript,

Wrong.  The basis for ECMAScript were *Netscape* JavaScript 1.1 *and* 
Microsoft JScript 1.0.  It says so *in every Edition of the ECMAScript 
Language Specification* (the versions are not mentioned there explicitly, 
you have to derive that from the corresponding version history).

> JavaScript is the term used for the most-used / well-know implementation
> of ECMAScript.

Wrong again.  There is not one JavaScript now, there are several, by several 
vendors.
 
> Obviously there is more than 1 implementation of this JavaScript,

Wrong again.  Those are not implementations of JavaScript, but of 
ECMAScript.

All of the above can be found in the ECMAScript Support Matrix and in my 
thesis (always in my sig), if one only *cared to read* instead of catering 
to one’s and one’s fellows’ misconceptions.

> Therefore, there is NO point in denying the existence of JavaScript

And *nobody* did that.  Learn to read.

<killfile>

-- 
PointedEars
FAQ: <http://PointedEars.de/faq> | SVN: <http://PointedEars.de/wsvn/>
Twitter: @PointedEars2 | ES Matrix: <http://PointedEars.de/es-matrix>
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.