Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!gegeweb.org!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: James Kuyper Newsgroups: comp.lang.javascript,comp.lang.c Subject: Re: "i = i|0" Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 12:17:46 -0400 Organization: Self Lines: 73 Message-ID: <5399D2AA.6010100@verizon.net> References: <44f393c9-8b85-4da8-8618-6b11dd3954b2@googlegroups.com> <5398CC30.9020706@verizon.net> <2078529.Slc7CH7YZo@PointedEars.de> <2122350.lP4zVSTnZj@PointedEars.de> <1894582.2ZI1QNF3Jn@PointedEars.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Info: mx05.eternal-september.org; posting-host="3543eedc8d2eea21288322f360238b6b"; logging-data="17573"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX197Rf749kA7C/6gqmtNIVTgngzSaj0KEzg=" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686 on x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0 In-Reply-To: <1894582.2ZI1QNF3Jn@PointedEars.de> Cancel-Lock: sha1:F0Toj2aRDNuZV91lTIbsMO2hz68= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.javascript:24779 comp.lang.c:45863 On 06/12/2014 11:13 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > James Kuyper wrote: > >> On 06/12/2014 08:45 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>> [F'up2 comp.lang.javascript] >> >> Noted, and ignored. Explanation in last paragraph. > > Noted, and rejected. We are _not_ discussing C anymore.\ Where does this "We" come from? You are, of course, free to discuss anything you wish. I, however, am still discussing the accuracy of the connection between the original C code and the JavaScript produced by Emscripten, a topic for which comp.lang.c is still an appropriate cross-reference. The minute that this thread ceases to have a valid C connection, I will also lose interest in it. ... >> so I'm still not sure what the cross-reference was intended to convey. > > There is no programming language called ”javascript”, and from that > everything else follows. STFW. I did indeed search the Web. The Wikipedia page for JavaScript says "JavaScript (JS) is a dynamic computer programming language". so you'll have to forgive me for thinking that there might be some truth in that statement. There's nothing unusual about Wikipedia being incorrect - but if so, would you or anyone else who cares about the issue care to correct that article? If so, how would you correct it? >> From your comments earlier, I assume it's something about the case. > > It is not just about the case, and I wonder which of my comments could have > mislead you to that assumption. "... newsgroup name is case-insensitive ... You would not talk about “c” either, ..." That's not enough evidence to prove anything, but you were being too coy to explain what you actually meant, so I was left with having to guess what you were talking about based upon the limited amount of available evidence. ... >> Or should it be JavaScript? > > Only if an ECMAScript implementation of that name is meant. Since there are > now several such ones that differ considerably (I count three major ones; > the fourth name is just marketing), I would prefix them with the vendor name > or engine codename to avoid the ambiguity. The Wikipedia page for JavaScript says that "JavaScript was formalized in the ECMAScript language standard ...", which seem to imply that JavaScript and ECMAScript are both valid terms, possibly referring to subtly different things. The OP called it JavaScript, without any prefix. He was talking about Emscripten. The Emscripten web page also calls what it produces JavaScript, without any prefix. I don't think I'm competent to judge whether or not it would be correct to take what they said about "JavaScript", and treat it as if were an an equivalent statement about "ECMAScript". Can you confirm that such a conversion would be correct? I certainly have no basis on which to choose a vendor name to use as a prefix. Would you care to identify the appropriate vendor? Do the differences between those different versions of ECMAScript affect the validity of Emscripten's translation of this C code? If so, how? If not, there's no point in worrying about which one is being referred to.