Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!weretis.net!feeder4.news.weretis.net!news.musoftware.de!wum.musoftware.de!news.karotte.org!news.bawue.net!npeer.de.kpn-eurorings.net!npeer-ng0.de.kpn-eurorings.net!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool2.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Message-ID: <7907134.SqZQeKoA52@PointedEars.de> From: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn Reply-To: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn Organization: PointedEars Software (PES) Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2012 17:50:17 +0100 User-Agent: KNode/4.4.11 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8Bit X-Face: %i>XG-yXR'\"2P/C_aO%~;2o~?g0pPKmbOw^=NT`tprDEf++D.m7"}HW6.#=U:?2GGctkL,f89@H46O$ASoW&?s}.k+&. <1868da91-d142-49ee-8b09-27c0983c1af4@a2g2000yqh.googlegroups.com> <2ae76e56-b811-4601-be70-3acfe1bfea19@m4g2000yqf.googlegroups.com> Followup-To: comp.lang.javascript MIME-Version: 1.0 Lines: 55 NNTP-Posting-Date: 06 Dec 2012 17:50:17 CET NNTP-Posting-Host: afa9c094.newsspool1.arcor-online.net X-Trace: DXC=8F83;2Y7UlOI7\_^6>c20Jic==]BZ:afN4Fo<]lROoRAnkgeX?EC@@@9]aE[9kcEZMDZm8W4\YJNLR=i2=[N6Y6Jc\41jbQ^H6F9`PACLdPTmB X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.javascript:17523 Patricia Shanahan wrote: > On 12/6/2012 7:11 AM, Scott Sauyet wrote: >> Patricia Shanahan wrote: >>> So far, I have found no practical use for the information that the >>> standard name is ECMAScript. It has not been relevant to any decision >>> I've needed to make. I expect sooner or later I'll find it useful, but >>> it was not high on the list of things I really needed to know to get >>> started programming in JavaScript. >> >> I am not one of those who has been stressing that point; quite the >> opposite, I would say. But I hope that is not what you heard from >> those making the point. It's not really a matter of the name. The >> main point being made is that there is no single language here, but a >> group of languages that to a greater or lesser degree adhere to the >> standard published by Ecma International. For a great deal of our >> discussion the differences between these related languages makes no >> practical difference. But there are times when the differences can >> become critical. >> >> I personally have no issue signaling those specific cases where the >> implementation makes a difference and only then being very precise >> about which versions of Microsoft's JScript, Mozilla's JavaScript, or >> whichever ECMAScript implementation are under discussion, choosing at >> other times to revert to the common usage of "Javascript". But I >> doubt even the most zealous advocates of the "There is no Javascript" >> position are particularly worried about the name "ECMAScript". > > The problem with this position is that there are major dialect > differences between e.g. what IE 8 supports and what IE 9 supports with > no change of language name. There are no “dialect differences”. Internet Explorer 8 supports a different *version* of Microsoft *JScript* than IE 9. Even Microsoft acknowledges that. > For that reason, it never occurred to me that insistence on not calling > Javascript "Javascript" had anything at all to do with the critical issue > of dialect differences. There are no dialect differences. There are different implementations of the same standard, which have a different name each, and then different versions of each of those implementations. > I was well aware of dialect differences […] You have a major misconception there. PointedEars -- var bugRiddenCrashPronePieceOfJunk = ( navigator.userAgent.indexOf('MSIE 5') != -1 && navigator.userAgent.indexOf('Mac') != -1 ) // Plone, register_function.js:16