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

Groups > comp.lang.javascript > #12606 > unrolled thread

Javascript directly calling the Google App Engine

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.javascript

Contents

  Javascript directly calling the Google App Engine R Hall <richkhall@gmail.com> - 2012-03-11 23:50 -0700
    Re: Javascript directly calling the Google App Engine "Evertjan." <exjxw.hannivoort@interxnl.net> - 2012-03-12 07:59 +0000
    Re: Javascript directly calling the Google App Engine Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2012-03-13 00:03 +0100
      Re: Javascript directly calling the Google App Engine John G Harris <john@nospam.demon.co.uk> - 2012-03-13 11:05 +0000
        Re: Javascript directly calling the Google App Engine Eric Bednarz <bednarz@fahr-zur-hoelle.org> - 2012-03-13 12:37 +0100
          Re: Javascript directly calling the Google App Engine John G Harris <john@nospam.demon.co.uk> - 2012-03-14 16:24 +0000
            Re: Javascript directly calling the Google App Engine Eric Bednarz <bednarz@fahr-zur-hoelle.org> - 2012-03-16 01:55 +0100
        Re: Javascript directly calling the Google App Engine Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-03-13 09:03 -0700
          Re: Javascript directly calling the Google App Engine David Mark <dmark.cinsoft@gmail.com> - 2012-03-13 10:53 -0700
            Re: Javascript directly calling the Google App Engine Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-03-13 12:36 -0700
          Re: Javascript directly calling the Google App Engine Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> - 2012-03-13 19:07 -0700
            Re: Javascript directly calling the Google App Engine Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-03-13 22:43 -0700
              Re: Javascript directly calling the Google App Engine Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> - 2012-03-16 06:09 -0700
                Re: Javascript directly calling the Google App Engine Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-03-16 12:53 -0700
                Re: Javascript directly calling the Google App Engine David Mark <dmark.cinsoft@gmail.com> - 2012-03-16 13:30 -0700
                  Re: Javascript directly calling the Google App Engine Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-03-16 15:42 -0700
                    Re: Javascript directly calling the Google App Engine David Mark <dmark.cinsoft@gmail.com> - 2012-03-16 17:32 -0700
            Re: Javascript directly calling the Google App Engine David Mark <dmark.cinsoft@gmail.com> - 2012-03-14 14:04 -0700
              Re: Javascript directly calling the Google App Engine Eric Bednarz <bednarz@fahr-zur-hoelle.org> - 2012-03-16 01:40 +0100
        Re: Javascript directly calling the Google App Engine BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-03-15 14:20 -0700
          Re: Javascript directly calling the Google App Engine John G Harris <john@nospam.demon.co.uk> - 2012-03-16 17:28 +0000
            Re: Javascript directly calling the Google App Engine BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-03-16 10:53 -0700
              Re: Javascript directly calling the Google App Engine John G Harris <john@nospam.demon.co.uk> - 2012-03-17 17:00 +0000
          Re: Javascript directly calling the Google App Engine Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2012-03-17 12:05 +0100
            Re: Javascript directly calling the Google App Engine BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-03-17 10:24 -0700
        Re: Javascript directly calling the Google App Engine Matt McDonald <matt@fortybelow.ca> - 2012-03-16 19:39 -0600
          Re: Javascript directly calling the Google App Engine David Mark <dmark.cinsoft@gmail.com> - 2012-03-16 18:54 -0700
          Re: Javascript directly calling the Google App Engine John G Harris <john@nospam.demon.co.uk> - 2012-03-17 16:53 +0000
            Re: Javascript directly calling the Google App Engine Matt McDonald <matt@fortybelow.ca> - 2012-03-17 13:10 -0600
              Re: Javascript directly calling the Google App Engine John G Harris <john@nospam.demon.co.uk> - 2012-03-18 13:06 +0000

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#12804

On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 at 14:20:50, in comp.lang.javascript, BGB wrote:

  <snip>
>in this sense, JavaScript can be be considered the case of ECMAScript which:
>runs in a web-browser;
>has lots more browser relevant APIs (DOM, AJAX, ...);
>...
  <snip>

  Netscape's Client-Side JavaScript Reference, v1.3 :

"JavaScript is a trademark of Sun Microsystems, Inc. used under license
for technology invented and implemented by Netscape Communications
Corporation"

The Mozilla reference still says it's a trademark.

  John
-- 
John Harris

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12810

On 3/16/2012 10:28 AM, John G Harris wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 at 14:20:50, in comp.lang.javascript, BGB wrote:
>
>    <snip>
>> in this sense, JavaScript can be be considered the case of ECMAScript which:
>> runs in a web-browser;
>> has lots more browser relevant APIs (DOM, AJAX, ...);
>> ...
>    <snip>
>
>    Netscape's Client-Side JavaScript Reference, v1.3 :
>
> "JavaScript is a trademark of Sun Microsystems, Inc. used under license
> for technology invented and implemented by Netscape Communications
> Corporation"
>
> The Mozilla reference still says it's a trademark.
>

if one wants to get fussy, this means one can only call it JavaScript if 
being used in a Mozilla browser...

this doesn't seem to refute the association of "JavaScript" with "being 
used with a browser" though (and with other uses in other domains, the 
language often being used under different names).

although, maybe it implies one is legally obligated to this use, like 
for example, if using it to script their game server, maybe it is 
technically a violation of the trademark if they still call it 
JavaScript?...

that, or, maybe the term can still apply so long as one is using 
SpiderMonkey or similar as the VM?...


or such...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12854

On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 at 10:53:20, in comp.lang.javascript, BGB wrote:
>On 3/16/2012 10:28 AM, John G Harris wrote:
>> On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 at 14:20:50, in comp.lang.javascript, BGB wrote:
>>
>>    <snip>
>>> in this sense, JavaScript can be be considered the case of ECMAScript which:
>>> runs in a web-browser;
>>> has lots more browser relevant APIs (DOM, AJAX, ...);
>>> ...
>>    <snip>
>>
>>    Netscape's Client-Side JavaScript Reference, v1.3 :
>>
>> "JavaScript is a trademark of Sun Microsystems, Inc. used under license
>> for technology invented and implemented by Netscape Communications
>> Corporation"
>>
>> The Mozilla reference still says it's a trademark.
>>
>
>if one wants to get fussy, this means one can only call it JavaScript
>if being used in a Mozilla browser...
  <snip>

Yup! Or NetScape Navigator of course. Except that NetScape also provided
a version for use in web servers so not just browser.

  John
-- 
John Harris

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12844

BGB wrote:

> On 3/13/2012 4:05 AM, John G Harris wrote:
>> On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 at 00:03:13, in comp.lang.javascript, Thomas
>> 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>    <snip>
>>> There is no "javascript", that is a common misconception.
>>    <snip>
>>
>> Is there anyone else who agrees with Thomas ?
> 
> technically, one can argue that the "real" language in question is
> ECMAScript, which comes in several varieties:
> JavaScript;
> JScript;
> ActionScript;
> ...

One would be wrong, then.  ECMAScript is a standard for object-oriented 
programming languages, precisely scripting languages ("programming 
language[s] that [are] used to manipulate, customise, and automate the 
facilities of an existing system") [1].  JavaScript, JScript, and 
ActionScript are some of the different implementations of that standard that 
(sometimes conformingly) differ from the standard and from each another; 
they are ECMAScript implementations.

It is important to make that distinction, not least because it matters which 
implementation is being talked about, as it is the host environment that 
defines the implementation that is used.  In this case, the ECMAScript 
implementation that was being referred to with "javascript" was probably, 
but not necessarily, Google V8 3.7.12.12 or later in Google Chrome 
17.0.963.78 or later [2].

See also <http://PointedEars.de/es-matrix> (a rather extensive update to 
include the results of my current work is coming in a few months from now).


PointedEars
___________
[1] Ecma International (June 2011). Standard ECMA-262. ECMAScript
    Language Specification. 5.1 Edition.
    <http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/files/ECMA-
     ST/Ecma-262.pdf> (accessed on 2012-03-17).
[2] <http://code.google.com/p/v8/source/browse/trunk/ChangeLog>
-- 
When all you know is jQuery, every problem looks $(olvable).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12855

On 3/17/2012 4:05 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> BGB wrote:
>
>> On 3/13/2012 4:05 AM, John G Harris wrote:
>>> On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 at 00:03:13, in comp.lang.javascript, Thomas
>>> 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>     <snip>
>>>> There is no "javascript", that is a common misconception.
>>>     <snip>
>>>
>>> Is there anyone else who agrees with Thomas ?
>>
>> technically, one can argue that the "real" language in question is
>> ECMAScript, which comes in several varieties:
>> JavaScript;
>> JScript;
>> ActionScript;
>> ...
>
> One would be wrong, then.  ECMAScript is a standard for object-oriented
> programming languages, precisely scripting languages ("programming
> language[s] that [are] used to manipulate, customise, and automate the
> facilities of an existing system") [1].  JavaScript, JScript, and
> ActionScript are some of the different implementations of that standard that
> (sometimes conformingly) differ from the standard and from each another;
> they are ECMAScript implementations.
>
> It is important to make that distinction, not least because it matters which
> implementation is being talked about, as it is the host environment that
> defines the implementation that is used.  In this case, the ECMAScript
> implementation that was being referred to with "javascript" was probably,
> but not necessarily, Google V8 3.7.12.12 or later in Google Chrome
> 17.0.963.78 or later [2].
>

fair enough.

however, ECMAScript tends to differ a little more between 
implementations than do some other languages (such as C or Java), and is 
a little fuzzier around the edges.

the term "varieties" was used in the sense that although they each have 
the core language in common, but may introduce a number of specific 
quirks (whether or not the variety is the same as a particular 
implementation was considered a secondary matter, but may be fairly 
relevant).


> See also<http://PointedEars.de/es-matrix>  (a rather extensive update to
> include the results of my current work is coming in a few months from now).
>

interesting...


and in my case there is the matter of how to classify my own 
language/implementation/variant/whatever, which is used primarily for 
application scripting purposes. going by the table, it would appear that 
it probably is an implementation (what features are problematic seem 
on-par with other implementations).

however, it doesn't mean it is necessarily interchangeable with other 
implementations though, as the way I use both the language and VM are 
fairly dependent on implementation-specific details (particularly 
regarding the C FFI and similar).


>
> PointedEars
> ___________
> [1] Ecma International (June 2011). Standard ECMA-262. ECMAScript
>      Language Specification. 5.1 Edition.
>      <http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/files/ECMA-
>       ST/Ecma-262.pdf>  (accessed on 2012-03-17).
> [2]<http://code.google.com/p/v8/source/browse/trunk/ChangeLog>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12840

On 12-03-13 05:05 AM, John G Harris wrote:
> Is there anyone else who agrees with Thomas ?

I've long appreciated the sheer technical depth of Thomas'
numerous posts on this newsgroup and others.

Time and time again, I've been corrected when making a
simple oversight or miscalculation. Though he doesn't
relay a message in a most appealing tone, his points
are quite often valid and should be examined for further
study. To attribute his contributions here to either malice
or "trolling" (as you and others have done many times) is
ignorant.

Personally, I find it comforting when reading a written piece
online—be it a job ad or an article—that the author has
spelled and cased "JavaScript" correctly. I often made the
mistake of spelling it "Javascript" in my earlier days with
the language. To me, it's a sign of someone who is truly
informed and takes the language seriously.

-- 
Matt McDonald: Web/Flash Developer; Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12841

On Mar 16, 9:39 pm, Matt McDonald <m...@fortybelow.ca> wrote:
> On 12-03-13 05:05 AM, John G Harris wrote:
>
> > Is there anyone else who agrees with Thomas ?
>
> I've long appreciated the sheer technical depth of Thomas'
> numerous posts on this newsgroup and others.
>
> Time and time again, I've been corrected when making a
> simple oversight or miscalculation. Though he doesn't
> relay a message in a most appealing tone, his points
> are quite often valid and should be examined for further
> study. To attribute his contributions here to either malice
> or "trolling" (as you and others have done many times) is
> ignorant.
>
> Personally, I find it comforting when reading a written piece
> online—be it a job ad or an article—that the author has
> spelled and cased "JavaScript" correctly. I often made the
> mistake of spelling it "Javascript" in my earlier days with
> the language. To me, it's a sign of someone who is truly
> informed and takes the language seriously.
>

JavaScript (tm)?  I don't think Thomas would spell it like that,
though at this point I'm not sure what he considers correct.  IMO, you
had it right before.  In a technical forum, there is sometimes a need
to distinguish between implementations (e.g. JScript, JavaScript) and
the underlying language.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12853

On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 at 19:39:46, in comp.lang.javascript, Matt McDonald 
wrote:
>On 12-03-13 05:05 AM, John G Harris wrote:
>> Is there anyone else who agrees with Thomas ?

   <snip>
>To attribute his contributions here to either malice
>or "trolling" (as you and others have done many times) is
>ignorant.

Your credibility has now fallen through the floor. I've just checked all 
my news articles back to 1999 and can say this for certain : I have 
NEVER called Thomas a troll; I have NEVER called Thomas malicious.


>Personally, I find it comforting when reading a written piece
>online—be it a job ad or an article—that the author has
>spelled and cased "JavaScript" correctly. I often made the
>mistake of spelling it "Javascript" in my earlier days with
>the language. To me, it's a sign of someone who is truly
>informed and takes the language seriously.

It seems you haven't understood the question. We need a name for any or 
all of the closely related languages used in browsers, servers, Acrobat, 
etc.

In the same way that "vehicle" covers cars, lorries, buses, bulldozers, 
etc, several of us think that "javascript", all lower case, is 
convenient to cover JavaScript, JScript, ActionScript, etc. It's short, 
it's easy to remember and recognise, and it doesn't exclude languages 
invented before ECMAScript came into existence.

Thomas thinks that the word will confuse some beginners and therefore 
anyone who uses the word will be told very firmly that they are WRONG - 
no explanation, and definitely no "in my opinion". This is bad teaching 
quite apart from the merits or otherwise of his opinion.

   John
-- 
John Harris

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12856

On 12-03-17 10:53 AM, John G Harris wrote:
> Your credibility has now fallen through the floor. I've just checked all
> my news articles back to 1999 and can say this for certain : I have
> NEVER called Thomas a troll; I have NEVER called Thomas malicious.

You have my apologies for that snippet. I believe I thought that
the "troll" accusations from a few bled over to you as well since
you are quite often sparring with Thomas.

> Thomas thinks that the word will confuse some beginners and therefore
> anyone who uses the word will be told very firmly that they are WRONG -
> no explanation, and definitely no "in my opinion". This is bad teaching
> quite apart from the merits or otherwise of his opinion.

I think that it's a far better practice to use "ECMAScript" to refer
to the umbrella of JavaScript-like languages, as this would lead
many to the ECMA specifications. While I wouldn't use the same level
of technical pedantry to emphasize casing, I think leading by example
would be a nice starting point.

-- 
Matt McDonald: Web/Flash Developer; Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12880

On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 at 13:10:24, in comp.lang.javascript, Matt McDonald
wrote:
>On 12-03-17 10:53 AM, John G Harris wrote:
>> Your credibility has now fallen through the floor. I've just checked all
>> my news articles back to 1999 and can say this for certain : I have
>> NEVER called Thomas a troll; I have NEVER called Thomas malicious.
>
>You have my apologies for that snippet. I believe I thought that
>the "troll" accusations from a few bled over to you as well since
>you are quite often sparring with Thomas.

You haven't been paying attention. Thomas says "troll" to the rest of
the universe about 100 times more often than the rest of the universe
says "troll" to Thomas.


>> Thomas thinks that the word will confuse some beginners and therefore
>> anyone who uses the word will be told very firmly that they are WRONG -
>> no explanation, and definitely no "in my opinion". This is bad teaching
>> quite apart from the merits or otherwise of his opinion.
>
>I think that it's a far better practice to use "ECMAScript" to refer
>to the umbrella of JavaScript-like languages, as this would lead
>many to the ECMA specifications. While I wouldn't use the same level
>of technical pedantry to emphasize casing, I think leading by example
>would be a nice starting point.

Now tell us how you would talk about ECMAScript itself.

Also, see what's wrong with talking about different DOM implementations
by ECMAScript.


  John
-- 
John Harris

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.javascript

csiph-web