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

Groups > comp.lang.javascript > #13690

Re: JS/Terminology

Followups directed to: comp.lang.javascript

Show all headers | View raw

Stefan Weiss wrote:

> 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.

Based on fact, unfortunately.

> I guess your point here is that using "JavaScript" as an umbrella term
> for ECMAScript implementations is harmful to newcomers.

Yes, it is.

> I will readily admit that "ECMAScript implementations" is more correct,

It is much more than that.  The term is, unfortunately, widely unknown (we 
have to thank the "javascript" for that, especially those writing books), so 
it has the potential to stir interest in the truth of reality.

To those who want to know, it raises the question "What are ECMAScript 
implementations?", as a consequence "What is ECMAScript?" and "Why is he 
talking about ECMAScript implementations when we are discussing *the* 
programming language, 'javascript'?".  

As for the rest, I do not care about those who do not want to know, and 
neither should you.

> 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.

But that is not what has happened in the past, it is not what is happening 
right now (see the previous Subject of this thread) and it is not what is 
going to happen in the future.  To whom it is implied by a supposed expert 
that they already know will not ask further questions to deepen and broaden 
their knowledge.  The evidence of that is all around you; you just have to 
stop ignoring it.  

> You smugly telling them that "There is no javascript", without any kind of
> explanation, will only confuse and alienate them.

This (non-)argument is really getting so old that it is beginning to acquire 
a foul odor.  As I have told you before, you will find it hard to find 
occurrences in my postings where I stated that without pointing to the 
ECMAScript Support Matrix.  I concede that the first section of that 
document might be misread as offensive and should be reworded; I am working 
on it.  But that does not change the fact that the evidence for the 
statement can be found there, which is appreciated at least by some (from 
whom I got rather positive feedback).

> And that's why I'm so annoyed by your constant intentionally cryptic
> replies in this group.

AISB, you really should pay more attention to what I am actually writing.

> If you really cared about educating people, you'd give them a polite
> pointer to a JS/ES terminology page.

If only you learned to understand what you read…

> Instead you'd rather annoy them (and many of the regulars) with one of you
> smartass replies.

See above.

>>> 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.

Because it is the *wrong* word.

> Many others are fine with "dialects" in this context

Because they do not know or care about semantics.  A *different* language is 
_not_ a dialect of another language.

> (use Google to confirm this if you don't believe me).

Google search results have never been solid evidence that it is right to do 
something.  There are more follies in the world than stars in the sky.

> There's even a whole section on ECMAScript dialects on Wikipedia.

Wikipedia has never been good reference material with regard to this topic.  
Indeed, all material about this topic in Wikipedia desperately needs a 
number of revisions, or a rewrite.

> Whatever... call it "variants", if that makes you happy.

I will not.  One different language is not a variant or dialect of another.  
German is not a variant or dialect of English only because they both derive 
from Germanic.  In the same sense, Microsoft JScript (2.0+) et al. are not 
variants or dialects of Netscape/Mozilla JavaScript (1.2+) only because they 
are all implementations of ECMAScript.  A cat is not a variant of a dog only 
because they are both domesticated animals equipped with a tail, and so on.

>>> 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.

No, an unexplained use of "JS" carries with it the risk of being 
misinterpreted as an abbreviation for JavaScript, with which we are coming 
full circle.

>>> 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. […]

You may be satisfied deluding yourself, but please do not insult my 
intelligence.

>> No, we are _not_ discussing "javascript" here; we are discussing
>> ECMAScript implementations and applications thereof.
> 
> I say that we do both. […]

There cannot be discussed both here.  One is a misleading ambiguous misnomer 
that should be abolished; the other is not.


PointedEars
-- 
    realism:    HTML 4.01 Strict
    evangelism: XHTML 1.0 Strict
    madness:    XHTML 1.1 as application/xhtml+xml
                                                    -- Bjoern Hoehrmann

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