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

Groups > comp.lang.javascript > #13683

JS/Terminology (was: Javascript Math problem)

Show all headers | View raw

On 2012-04-28 22:23, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Stefan Weiss wrote:
>> On 2012-04-28 13:04, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> You mean _in conforming implementations of ECMAScript_, of course.
>> 
>> No, Thomas, I don't. Anywhere else, I would have written "JavaScript"
>> and people would automatically understand it as a pars pro toto.
> 
> No, as you would not have bothered to define the term before using it (the 
> same as you have not bothered to define "JS"), they too would have acquired 
> or seen confirmed their common misconception that there was only one 
> programming language that was implemented everywhere.  As a result, they 
> would not care about the implementations of ECMAScript, and their 
> differences.  Instead they would begin or continue to ascribe well-specified 
> differences and the differences that must follow from ECMAScript 
> implementations being only the interface languages to APIs like the DOM to 
> "JavaScript bugs".

"You would not"... "they would"... this is all conjecture.
I guess your point here is that using "JavaScript" as an umbrella term
for ECMAScript implementations is harmful to newcomers. I will readily
admit that "ECMAScript implementations" is more correct, but I dispute
that any real harm is being done by using the name "JavaScript" loosely,
or by accepting this usage from someone else. If a person is new to JS,
chances are they've never heard of ECMAScript before. If they're serious
about learning the language, they will find out about it soon enough; if
they aren't serious, it doesn't matter either way. You smugly telling
them that "There is no javascript", without any kind of explanation,
will only confuse and alienate them. And that's why I'm so annoyed by
your constant intentionally cryptic replies in this group. If you really
cared about educating people, you'd give them a polite pointer to a
JS/ES terminology page. Instead you'd rather annoy them (and many of the
regulars) with one of you smartass replies.

>> When there's a relevant distinction to be made between engines, dialects,
>> or versions, we'll mention it.
> 
> There are no dialects; that is just another form of the same fallacy.

No, that's just you objecting to a word again. Many others are fine with
"dialects" in this context (use Google to confirm this if you don't
believe me). There's even a whole section on ECMAScript dialects on
Wikipedia.
Whatever... call it "variants", if that makes you happy.

>> I'm certainly not going to write "conforming implementations of
>> ECMAScript" every time.
> 
> You do not have to.  "ECMAScript implementations" usually suffices in a 
> general discussion.

So does "JS", unless you're trying hard very to misunderstand somebody.

>> If you have a better suggestion, please let us hear it.
> 
> Apparently you are thinking that by using the royal "we" you would be more 
> right or have more rights than if you had just used "I".

Excuse me, but are you insane? "Royal we"? I was asking you to tell the
group your suggestion.
If you're under the impression that I'm the only one who's fed up with
your there-is-no-javascripts, you don't read this group closely enough.

> Keep in mind that wise thought by Bertrand Russell that even if all
> agree – as construed by you, which is not necessarily the case – all
> can still be wrong.

First, I never said anything like that, and you know it. Second, while
it's possible that "everybody" is wrong, that doesn't mean that the lone
Quixote is necessarily right. (And third, if I had quoted Betrand
Russell, no doubt you'd be accusing me of "appeal to authority" now.)

It isn't even a question of right or wrong. I know that JavaScript is,
strictly speaking, the name for one specific implementation, while
"ECMAScript implementations" encompasses all of them. So yes, you're
right about that, no doubt.

Nevertheless, JavaScript has become the term by which browser scripting
in general is now known to the masses. Websites don't ask you to
activate an ECMAScript implementation; when you talk to a client, you
don't say that a form input could be checked with an ECMAScript
implementation; when you create an external script file, you don't name
it ufpdbfrm.es, you name it ufpdbfrm.js. Some insist on using .es, but
.es is not likely to become popular. ECMAScript was always an unwanted
trade name that sounds like a skin disease.

Face it, this boat has sailed. When a name becomes popular enough, it
can become too powerful to dislodge, even if a more correct name exists.
People now google things on Bing, and you yourself have no problem
calling your current OS Linux, when the "more correct" name would be
GNU/Linux. These things happen all the time, and it's fine, until
somebody comes along and tries to find ambiguities where none exist.

> No, we are _not_ discussing "javascript" here; we are discussing ECMAScript 
> implementations and applications thereof.

I say that we do both. If names are so important to you, then by all
means use the one you prefer. But when you talk to other people, you
should consider following Postel's Law: be liberal in what you accept
from others, and conservative in what you yourself write.

- stefan

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

Thread

Javascript Math problem Tom <thart@vicon.net> - 2012-04-27 15:41 -0700
  Re: Javascript Math problem Stefan Weiss <krewecherl@gmail.com> - 2012-04-28 01:33 +0200
    Re: Javascript Math problem Tom <thart@vicon.net> - 2012-04-27 18:02 -0700
    Re: Javascript Math problem Dr J R Stockton <reply1217@merlyn.demon.co.uk.not.invalid> - 2012-04-29 21:07 +0100
      Re: Javascript Math problem "Evertjan." <exjxw.hannivoort@interxnl.net> - 2012-04-30 08:06 +0000
        Re: Javascript Math problem Tom <thart@vicon.net> - 2012-04-30 01:33 -0700
        Re: Javascript Math problem Dr J R Stockton <reply1218@merlyn.demon.co.uk.not.invalid> - 2012-05-01 19:30 +0100
  Re: Javascript Math problem "Michael Haufe (TNO)" <tno@thenewobjective.com> - 2012-04-27 17:30 -0700
    Re: Javascript Math problem Tom <thart@vicon.net> - 2012-04-27 18:05 -0700
    Re: Javascript Math problem Stefan Weiss <krewecherl@gmail.com> - 2012-04-28 04:00 +0200
      Re: Javascript Math problem Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2012-04-28 13:04 +0200
        Re: Javascript Math problem Stefan Weiss <krewecherl@gmail.com> - 2012-04-28 21:10 +0200
          Re: Javascript Math problem Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2012-04-28 22:23 +0200
            Re: Javascript Math problem "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi> - 2012-04-28 23:39 +0300
            JS/Terminology (was: Javascript Math problem) Stefan Weiss <krewecherl@gmail.com> - 2012-04-29 05:59 +0200
              Re: JS/Terminology Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2012-04-29 16:15 +0200
                Re: JS/Terminology Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2012-04-29 16:20 +0200
                Re: JS/Terminology Puzzled <scratching.head@example.com> - 2012-05-07 16:22 -0400
                Re: JS/Terminology Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-05-07 14:36 -0700
                Re: JS/Terminology "Evertjan." <exjxw.hannivoort@interxnl.net> - 2012-05-08 08:40 +0000
                Re: JS/Terminology Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-05-08 09:29 -0700
            Re: Javascript Math problem John G Harris <john@nospam.demon.co.uk> - 2012-04-29 17:30 +0100
          Re: Javascript Math problem Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> - 2012-04-30 06:19 -0700
            Re: Javascript Math problem Dr J R Stockton <reply1218@merlyn.demon.co.uk.not.invalid> - 2012-05-01 19:48 +0100
              Re: Javascript Math problem Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-05-01 19:30 -0700
      Re: Javascript Math problem "Mel Smith" <med_cutout_syntel@aol.com> - 2012-04-28 09:00 -0600
    Re: Javascript Math problem "Evertjan." <exjxw.hannivoort@interxnl.net> - 2012-04-28 09:02 +0000

csiph-web