Fwd: [TLUG]: ECMAScript ("Javascript") Version 4 - FALSE ALARM
|
View:
New views
20 Messages
—
Rating Filter:
Alert me
|
| < Prev | 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 | Next > |
 |
|
|
|
Re: [TLUG]: ECMAScript ("Javascript") Version 4 - FALSE ALARM
by Mark Miller-2
::
Rate this Message:
On 10/27/07, Scott Elcomb <psema4@...> wrote:
> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Walter Dnes <waltdnes@...> > On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 04:04:52PM -0400, Scott Elcomb wrote > Not so fast. See the note on Slashdot Firehose at > http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&id=350409 > Since it's not too long, I'll quote it in its entirety... > > > "[...] This seems a little `cloak > > and dagger` of those running the site, who desire serious changes > > and are unfortunately Mozilla, Adobe, and others. The concerned > > individual suggested that they simply create a new language with a > > new name, as there are that many fundamental differences. Many of > > us are very concerned that the language we love is being rewritten > > under our feet." I was not at the Ajax Experience conference, but I just spent the last week at OOPSLA. Everyone at OOPSLA I ran into who knows about the ES4 proposal hates it. The general sense is that they think it's a train wreck. But there's a feeling of resignation: Yet another runaway standards process to oppress us. The people expressing this opinion include some extremely good programming language folks with great track records and reputations. I have only skimmed the proposed ES4 spec, so I can't yet venture an informed opinion. However, as a language designer myself, my initial sense of smell corroborates the consensus I saw at OOPSLA. I did raise with people the notion that the new larger language be given a different name. One reason that C managed to stay small is that all those who wanted to grow it self-selected to grow C++ instead. Likewise, the existence of Common Lisp probably helped protect the smallness of Scheme. Everyone I mentioned this to thought this name change would be a good idea, and would help protect the continued evolution of the language we now call Javascript, i.e., EcmaScript 262 Edition 3. Whatever its flaws or virtues might be, the ES4 proposal is simply a very different language. Please let's be honest about that and change its name. -- Text by me above is hereby placed in the public domain Cheers, --MarkM _______________________________________________ Es4-discuss mailing list Es4-discuss@... https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es4-discuss |
|
|
Re: [TLUG]: ECMAScript ("Javascript") Version 4 - FALSE ALARM
by Jeff Dyer
::
Rate this Message:
I've responded briefly to the slashdot posting. Bottom line is that the
majority of the participants are working in the open to finish a set of language proposals that largely originated in 1999 at Netscape. It is not new and there should be few surprises to those, including Microsoft, who have participated in TG1 since then. Opposing members from two companies have made general claims along the lines that "it is too different to be called the same language" and "it will destabilize the web". Both arguments have been refuted in detail, in private and public (e.g. http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/2504). And we have yet to hear similarly detailed or convincing response from those 'minimalists'. That could be because their motives have more to do with specific business concerns, rather than broad technical concerns. I guess we won't know until they come out and say it. Jd On 10/27/07 8:00 AM, Scott Elcomb wrote: > Hi all, > > First off, I'd like to say thanks for all the good questions and > answers from folks on the list. I haven't been here long, but have > already learned a bunch. Looking forward to ES4. > > Anyway, I received this post* this morning in response to a notice I > sent along about the ES4 overview. I'm not sure what to make of the > story... > > Any comments or clarifications? > > * http://article.gmane.org/gmane.org.user-groups.linux.tolug/36420 > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Walter Dnes <waltdnes@...> > Date: Oct 27, 2007 3:44 AM > Subject: Re: [TLUG]: ECMAScript ("Javascript") Version 4 - FALSE ALARM > To: tlug@... > > > On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 04:04:52PM -0400, Scott Elcomb wrote > >> An official overview[1] of "Javascript 2.0" was released today. >> It will likely be some months (at least) for this version of the >> language to show up in web browsers, but it might be a good idea to >> get on-board early. > > Not so fast. See the note on Slashdot Firehose at > http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&id=350409 > > Since it's not too long, I'll quote it in its entirety... > >> "At The Ajax Experience conference, it was announced that an >> ECMAScript4 white paper had been released. The implication being >> that the white paper was the upcoming spec, which is untrue. Not to >> mention this is not an official ECMA site, but a site run by only >> some of the members from the ECMAScript4 group. These facts were >> later revealed by another concerned ECMAScript4 member. He encouraged >> any interested parties to read the proposed feature white paper, join >> the discussion mailing list on that site, and share your opinions >> for (or against) the desired features. This seems a little `cloak >> and dagger` of those running the site, who desire serious changes >> and are unfortunately Mozilla, Adobe, and others. The concerned >> individual suggested that they simply create a new language with a >> new name, as there are that many fundamental differences. Many of >> us are very concerned that the language we love is being rewritten >> under our feet." > > -- > Walter Dnes <waltdnes@...> In linux /sbin/init is Job #1 > Q. Mr. Ghandi, what do you think of Microsoft security? > A. I think it would be a good idea. > -- > The Toronto Linux Users Group. Meetings: http://gtalug.org/ > TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns > How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://gtalug.org/wiki/Mailing_lists > _______________________________________________ Es4-discuss mailing list Es4-discuss@... https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es4-discuss |
|
|
Re: [TLUG]: ECMAScript ("Javascript") Version 4 - FALSE ALARM
by Robert Sayre-2
::
Rate this Message:
On 10/27/07, Mark Miller <erights@...> wrote:
> > I was not at the Ajax Experience conference, but I just spent the last > week at OOPSLA. Everyone at OOPSLA I ran into who knows about the ES4 > proposal hates it. The general sense is that they think it's a train > wreck. But there's a feeling of resignation: Yet another runaway > standards process to oppress us. > > I have only skimmed the proposed ES4 spec, so I can't yet venture an > informed opinion. However, as a language designer myself, my initial > sense of smell corroborates the consensus I saw at OOPSLA. Hi Mark, I'm afraid your message falls into a pattern I've been seeing lately: unsubstantiated, non-technical criticism. In other words, FUD. If you have technical criticism to contribute, it is of course welcome. -- Robert Sayre "I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time." _______________________________________________ Es4-discuss mailing list Es4-discuss@... https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es4-discuss |
|
|
Re: [TLUG]: ECMAScript ("Javascript") Version 4 - FALSE ALARM
by Jeff Dyer
::
Rate this Message:
On 10/27/07 10:17 AM, Mark Miller wrote: > On 10/27/07, Scott Elcomb <psema4@...> wrote: >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: Walter Dnes <waltdnes@...> >> On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 04:04:52PM -0400, Scott Elcomb wrote >> Not so fast. See the note on Slashdot Firehose at >> http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&id=350409 >> Since it's not too long, I'll quote it in its entirety... >> >>> "[...] This seems a little `cloak >>> and dagger` of those running the site, who desire serious changes >>> and are unfortunately Mozilla, Adobe, and others. The concerned >>> individual suggested that they simply create a new language with a >>> new name, as there are that many fundamental differences. Many of >>> us are very concerned that the language we love is being rewritten >>> under our feet." > > I was not at the Ajax Experience conference, but I just spent the last > week at OOPSLA. Everyone at OOPSLA I ran into who knows about the ES4 > proposal hates it. The general sense is that they think it's a train > wreck. But there's a feeling of resignation: Yet another runaway > standards process to oppress us. The people expressing this opinion > include some extremely good programming language folks with great > track records and reputations. > > I have only skimmed the proposed ES4 spec, so I can't yet venture an > informed opinion. However, as a language designer myself, my initial > sense of smell corroborates the consensus I saw at OOPSLA. > > I did raise with people the notion that the new larger language be > given a different name. One reason that C managed to stay small is > that all those who wanted to grow it self-selected to grow C++ > instead. Likewise, the existence of Common Lisp probably helped > protect the smallness of Scheme. Everyone I mentioned this to thought > this name change would be a good idea, and would help protect the > continued evolution of the language we now call Javascript, i.e., > EcmaScript 262 Edition 3. Whatever its flaws or virtues might be, the > ES4 proposal is simply a very different language. Please let's be > honest about that and change its name. Mark, Thanks for this news from the street. Although, I'm not sure what it means that "everyone...hates" ES4. Can you be more specific? And, I'd be curious to know what evidence is given that the standard's process is "running away". There are detailed notes of the working group meetings since late 2005 when work on ES4 was restarted. They are posted at: http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=meetings:meetings Brendan an others have clearly articulated the need for the language to evolve. And yet all we hear in response are the hollow generalizations such as are above. People's track records and reputations don't mean much if they are unnamed and uninformed. In the hallway in an OOPSLA in late 90's the inventor of Self made the remark to me [paraphrased, of course], "I don't know much about JavaScript, but I haven't heard many good things about it". I have spoken with that same person recently and he said "JavaScript is a pretty interesting language...I be interested in working on it." The point is that knowledge and experience changes perspective. Do you really believe that ES4 is a train wreck? I'd like to hear back from you after you have a chance to do some homework. Jd _______________________________________________ Es4-discuss mailing list Es4-discuss@... https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es4-discuss |
|
|
Re: [TLUG]: ECMAScript ("Javascript") Version 4 - FALSE ALARM
by Brendan Eich-2
::
Rate this Message:
On Oct 27, 2007, at 8:00 AM, Scott Elcomb wrote:
What follows below are my opinions, presented bluntly as ever. This is long, but evidently necessary and appropriate to es4-discuss. I'll blog about the situation soon too.
As much as possible, those of us in Ecma TG1 actually working productively on ES4 for over two consecutive years have made our work and intentions known by means of this list, the http://ecmascript.org site, the SML reference implementation, and blog posts and public talks I've given. In opposition, only Doug Crockford has spoken his mind forthrightly in the last several months. Good for him (I'll argue with his version of the reality elsewhere), but shame on the biggest company involved, which has not contributed at all in the open, instead leaving people with wrong impressions about its commitment to ES4. Many people don't know where Microsoft stands, knowing only that it contributed over the years to draft ES4 proposals, implemented a variant of one such draft specification in JScript.NET, and had one of its employees (Rok Yu) contributing to TG1 work, with his name on E4X (ECMA-357) as well as ES3 and the 2003 interim ES4 draft report. Indeed, up until early this year, the rest of us in TG1 had no clear statement of dissent from Microsoft. So, who is not dealing forthrightly or openly here? To be more fair than the opponents of ES4-as-proposed have been, I'll add this obvious reassurance: any organization or person can change position. Indeed one Microsoft rep confided to me that "we were asleep!" about what was going on with Microsoft passively participating in TG1 before this year. So let's say there was no duplicity, no playing along with the rest of TG1's long-standing work, only to reverse suddenly late in the process. Nevertheless, standards do not require unanimity, and even Microsoft loses sometimes. That's life.
This overview reflects the position of the majority in Ecma TC39-TG1. A minority in TG1 do not agree that the language presented here should become ES4. However, Ecma and ISO do not require unanimity to make standards, and no alternative proposal has been submitted to TG1. Therefore the language described in this overview continues to be proposed as ES4. No one reading this overview could confuse it for a specification. From the front page of the overview, the first footnote: This document reflects the understanding of the language as of October 2007. TG1 is no longer accepting proposals and has started writing the language specification. The ES4 reference implementation is undergoing stabilization and is already passing large parts of its test suite, and this document describes the final language in most respects. That said, TG1 maintains a bug tracking system at http://bugs.ecmascript.org/, and ES4 is subject to further refinement as known and new bugs in the design are resolved
Another bogus tactic: play the underdog, oppressed into anonymity by the majority in some formerly-consensus-based group. Yeah, right! Microsoft is never the underdog. (I'm assuming that member was not Doug Crockford.) Anonymous, easily falsified assertions do not help persuade anyone. They are obvious signs of political intrigue instigated by the anonymous party, in preference to joining in open discussion and debate.
This propaganda technique is meant to inflame all parties and distract from the substantive question, which is this: Should ES4 grow to address real problems in ES3, and thereby subsume (in the case of ActionScript 3) or compete with (Microsoft's favored .NET languages) the proprietary languages some vendors now opposing it are selling (Microsoft) or using (Yahoo!)? Or should ES4 be a small and mostly formal (deprecation, not actual incompatibility) set of changes to ES3?
The "unfortunately" above is telling. It's "unfortunate" that organizations other than the dominant browser vendor (you know, the one convicted of abusing its monopoly and forced back into the web standard bodies only by renewed browser competition) have tried to build a meaningful successor version to Edition 3 of ECMAScript, one that addresses real problems in the language faced by JS users every day. After eight years of stagnation, mostly due to the monopolistic vendor. It would be good fortune, then, I suppose, to keep JavaScript "down on the farm", while Silverlight and its likely integration (if not the full WPF stack integration) in IE8 have time to reach and penetrate the Web. I get it! We should just lie back and rest easy. Indeed Microsoft does not desire serious change to ES3, and we heard this inside TG1 in April. The words were (from my notes) more like this: "Microsoft does not think the web needs to change much". Except, of course, via Silverlight and WPF, which if not matched by evolution of the open web standards, will spread far and wide on the Web, as Flash already has. And that change to the Web is apparently just fine and dandy according to Microsoft. In this view, standards bodies exist to give advantage to competing companies, preferably by stamping -- sometimes rubber-stamping -- de jure approval on vendor-created de facto standards. If one company has dominant market position, it's fine for that market power to translate directly into standards power. Sometimes, as in the case of OOXML vs. ODF, it is also fine for a company to compete with an open standard being favored by governments, by trying to create an alternative standard and push it through ISO. Mozilla's position is different: standards bodies exist to serve developers and users, in this case web developers who write JS and use its libraries, and browser users who face increasingly advanced graphical and hypertext web applications that are pushing the limits of open standards implemented natively in the browsers. In our view, standards bodies can and should evolve standards to meet unmet needs. This view is shared by the majority cohort in TG1, who favor ES4. Look at the history of JavaScript from 1995 through 2004, when Firefox launched and took back market share from IE. When Netscape had majority browser share, Microsoft worked aggressively in ECMA (as it was then spelled) to evolve ES1-3. Once Microsoft had near-monopoly share, progress utterly halted. Is Microsoft's philosophy of standards the right thing? Is it the best way to improve the web? Take a side, but spare me the pretense that the group acting openly and working on ES4 is somehow victimizing the ES4 rejecters, who have to use anonymous sock puppets to speak (with forked tongues) for themselves.
I'm actually not sure Doug or Microsoft's representatives know this, however. Sometimes they speak as if type annotations or static type checking are being mandated in ES4. Of course that's not true, but such misapprehensions keep coming up, mostly as "spin" or "talking points", not as substantive technical claims that could be proven true or false.
Love is important, it's what keeps a boat in the air (Serenity). This sounds all heartfelt -- but it's phony as a three dollar bill! ES4 is a superset of ES3, with optional new facilities. It does nothing to "the language we love" but supplement it where its weaknesses are manifest to anyone who has written large programs in JS. No one is required to use the new features, nothing is lost from the common core language. I created JS, so I can speak more authentically than whoever was quoted above: I love JS too, quirks and all, but the idea that it should be kept small, like a Toy Poodle, while giant companies such as Microsoft and Yahoo! are purveying and propagating onto the Web proprietary Rottweiler languages -- JS-beating programming languages with ES4-like features -- and even hyping such languages against JS (see the rigged C# chess demo from Mix07 that MS wrote to show up the JScript version of the same program: http://primates.ximian.com/~miguel/pictures/mix-chess.png) -- this is a breathtaking imposture. Sure, keep JS small in your hearts. But please, don't kid yourselves that it has not reached the big-time, or that it and the open web standards it works with to enable Ajax apps will survive the onslaught of proprietary competitors, unless JS and other open standards evolve significantly. On that note, I'll stop. Peace, love, and truth to all, including the anonymous cowards. /be
_______________________________________________ Es4-discuss mailing list Es4-discuss@... https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es4-discuss |
|
|
Re: [TLUG]: ECMAScript ("Javascript") Version 4 - FALSE ALARM
by Dave Herman-2
::
Rate this Message:
Mark,
> I was not at the Ajax Experience conference, but I just spent the last > week at OOPSLA. Everyone at OOPSLA I ran into who knows about the ES4 > proposal hates it. The general sense is that they think it's a train > wreck. But there's a feeling of resignation: Yet another runaway > standards process to oppress us. The people expressing this opinion > include some extremely good programming language folks with great > track records and reputations. I've been to lots of conferences with reputable PL people too, and I know that they are no more immune to rumor than other venues. All it takes is one person to start spreading FUD about a technology for it to become the buzz and ultimately accepted "wisdom." I was not at OOPSLA, so I couldn't say for sure what people are really saying. But just to hear that unnamed people were bad-mouthing ES4 contributes nothing but bad blood to the conversation. Please stick to arguments about substance. Your expertise in language design is well known and *more* than welcome here, Mark; I would love to hear you weigh in on content. > I did raise with people the notion that the new larger language be > given a different name. One reason that C managed to stay small is > that all those who wanted to grow it self-selected to grow C++ > instead. Likewise, the existence of Common Lisp probably helped > protect the smallness of Scheme. Everyone I mentioned this to thought The example of Scheme seems to contradict your point. Common Lisp grew out of an incumbent language, whereas Scheme came out of a separate rewrite of Lisp. As I understand it, Guy and Gerry designed Scheme for their own purposes largely out of whole cloth. Note also that Scheme too has had to grow as it has matured. In fact, Guy Steele gave a famous talk--at OOPSLA, no less--on the importance of language growth. At any rate, Scheme and C++ are languages with different ecosystems from JavaScript. JavaScript exists first and foremost on the web. It's the only open-standard engine behind the platform of the web. Brendan Eich has repeatedly explained why a multiplicity of languages on the web is infeasible, e.g. at the URL Jeff Dyer linked to (http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/2504). So obstructing the progress of JS and consequently the open web in the name of preserving the purity of a "platonic ideal" of JavaScript strikes me as either a mistake of philosophical extremism, a convenient cover for conflicted business interests, or a combination of both. > this name change would be a good idea, and would help protect the > continued evolution of the language we now call Javascript, i.e., > EcmaScript 262 Edition 3. Whatever its flaws or virtues might be, the > ES4 proposal is simply a very different language. Please let's be > honest about that and change its name. The language is without doubt much larger than it was. Part of this is driven by a desire to provide conveniences that in ES3 people are forced to simulate, often at cost to both performance and clarity: classes via prototypes, local bindings and private members via closures, etc. And part of this is driven by a need for language features with tighter guarantees; ES3 features such as the prototype system, global object, with-bindings, eval, etc. are famously anathema to abstraction, reasoning about code, and practical compiler optimization. So introducing new language features provides programmers the features they need and implementors greater flexibility in optimization, in order to keep JS competitive. Finally, just to reiterate that the "it's a different language" charge glosses a critical aspect of the ES4 proposal, namely backwards compatibility. ES4 is not a new language. It is, as the overview describes, a significant evolution of ES3. Dave _______________________________________________ Es4-discuss mailing list Es4-discuss@... https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es4-discuss |
|
|
Re: [TLUG]: ECMAScript ("Javascript") Version 4 - FALSE ALARM
by Brendan Eich-2
::
Rate this Message:
On Oct 27, 2007, at 1:53 PM, Dave Herman wrote:
> In fact, Guy Steele gave a famous talk--at OOPSLA, no less--on the > importance of language growth. http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/steele99growing.html video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8860158196198824415 /be _______________________________________________ Es4-discuss mailing list Es4-discuss@... https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es4-discuss |
|
|
Re: [TLUG]: ECMAScript ("Javascript") Version 4 - FALSE ALARM
by Scott Elcomb
::
Rate this Message:
On 10/27/07, Brendan Eich <brendan@...> wrote:
> On Oct 27, 2007, at 8:00 AM, Scott Elcomb wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> First off, I'd like to say thanks for all the good questions and >> answers from folks on the list. I haven't been here long, but have >> already learned a bunch. Looking forward to ES4. > > Thanks. Here's hoping ES4 as proposed is not quashed by the combination of > anonymous propaganda campaigns and truly-secret maneuverings within the > standards body by the pay-to-play members (Mozilla is not one; we don't have > that access). > > What follows below are my opinions, presented bluntly as ever. This is long, > but evidently necessary and appropriate to es4-discuss. I'll blog about the > situation soon too. Not sure if you're active on Slashdot or not. Would you mind if I attached your message to the /. thread? (I won't post it without permission, and will mention "with permission" if it's provided.) There's much I'd like to say in response to the various points of your message (mostly in the form of questions and support); unfortunately I lack your clarity in communication. If there's an "abuse of Slashdot" (perish the thought! lol), I'd like to see /. participants weigh-in. (evil grin) -- Scott Elcomb http://www.psema4.com/ _______________________________________________ Es4-discuss mailing list Es4-discuss@... https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es4-discuss |
|
|
Re: [TLUG]: ECMAScript ("Javascript") Version 4 - FALSE ALARM
by Brendan Eich-2
::
Rate this Message:
On Oct 27, 2007, at 3:38 PM, Scott Elcomb wrote:
> Not sure if you're active on Slashdot or not. Would you mind if I > attached your message to the /. thread? (I won't post it without > permission, and will mention "with permission" if it's provided.) You could instead hyperlink to: https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es4-discuss/2007-October/001309.html I'm assuming readers who would benefit would know and bother to follow a link. (I stopped reading /. long ago, as having my own small children to look after involved less chin-wiping and was more edifying and entertaining. :-) /be _______________________________________________ Es4-discuss mailing list Es4-discuss@... https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es4-discuss |
|
|
Re: [TLUG]: ECMAScript ("Javascript") Version 4 - FALSE ALARM
by Scott Elcomb
::
Rate this Message:
On 10/27/07, Brendan Eich <brendan@...> wrote:
> On Oct 27, 2007, at 3:38 PM, Scott Elcomb wrote: > > > Not sure if you're active on Slashdot or not. Would you mind if I > > attached your message to the /. thread? (I won't post it without > > permission, and will mention "with permission" if it's provided.) > > You could instead hyperlink to: > > https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es4-discuss/2007-October/001309.html > > I'm assuming readers who would benefit would know and bother to > follow a link. (I stopped reading /. long ago, as having my own small > children to look after involved less chin-wiping and was more > edifying and entertaining. :-) Lol. I am also a father, and know exactly of what you speak. :-) The hyperlink (which was provided to TLUG earlier today) is the kernel of my thought; my suggestion is to "activate the marketing potential"* of /. - by re-wrapping the original thread in a question posed to "Ask Slashdot." The whole idea of "anonymous journalists" is reminiscent of recent articles in the mainstream media about the quality of certain Wikipedia entries. Regardless of the quality of /. articles, editors, or commentators, it remains a communication nexus. Just a thought. * By this I mean, encouraging communication among those who don't belong to the group "readers who would benefit" - a few years ago it was conversations such as this that drew me inexorably into the world of FOSS. -- Scott Elcomb http://www.psema4.com/ _______________________________________________ Es4-discuss mailing list Es4-discuss@... https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es4-discuss |
|
|
Re: [TLUG]: ECMAScript ("Javascript") Version 4 - FALSE ALARM
by Garrett
::
Rate this Message:
On 10/27/07, Dave Herman <dherman@...> wrote:
> Mark, > > > The language is without doubt much larger than it was. Part of this is > driven by a desire to provide conveniences that in ES3 people are forced > to simulate, often at cost to both performance and clarity: classes via > prototypes, local bindings and private members via closures, etc. You've stated that people are forced to simulate both performance and clarity by using closures. That is a bold statement and you have provided no evidence to back that up. In fact, I have never heard Douglas Crockford mention anything about performance implications or code clarity in any of his talks, when he explains things like the Module Pattern or Power Constructor. Can you provide proof for this? And > part of this is driven by a need for language features with tighter > guarantees; ES3 features such as the prototype system, global object, > with-bindings, eval, etc. are famously anathema to abstraction, > reasoning about code, and practical compiler optimization. So > introducing new language features provides programmers the features they > need and implementors greater flexibility in optimization, in order to > keep JS competitive. What features do programmers need? Garrett > > Finally, just to reiterate that the "it's a different language" charge > glosses a critical aspect of the ES4 proposal, namely backwards > compatibility. ES4 is not a new language. It is, as the overview > describes, a significant evolution of ES3. > > Dave -- Programming is a collaborative art. _______________________________________________ Es4-discuss mailing list Es4-discuss@... https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es4-discuss |
|
|
Re: [TLUG]: ECMAScript ("Javascript") Version 4 - FALSE ALARM
by Mark Miller-2
::
Rate this Message:
Thank you all for your feedback. Yes, I understand that my "bad smell"
comment may have been less than helpful, though it hardly compares to some of the ad hominem comments in some of the responses. I will spend time reading the new overview paper; and I will post further feedback as I go. In exchange, I suggest that everyone here read Tony Hoare's Turing award lecture: <http://www.sli-institute.ac.uk/~bob/hoare.pdf>. In the meantime, I should explain what I'm reacting to. The first paragraph of the abstract of this new overview paper lists the following features [with connective text removed]: # classes, interfaces, namespaces, packages, program units, optional type annotations, # optional static type checking and verification, structural types, duck typing, type definitions, # multimethods, parameterized types, getters and setters, meta-level methods, proper tail # calls, iterators, generators, type meta-objects, stack marks. Each of these may individually be good ideas. But languages can die of too many good ideas. Personally, I have my doubts about several of these (multimethods, duck typing, proper tail calls). Several of the others are hard to get right enough to do more harm than good, and few have (parameterized types, meta-level methods, iterators, generators, type meta-objects). The problem is the combination. Language features are rarely as orthogonal as one might hope. The interaction of even a small subset of the features listed above can take decades of many failed attempts to work out well. But even if you have succeeded at integrating together more good ideas into a coherent language design than have many previous brilliant language designers, I have another concern: Standards bodies should not do de-novo design. And they especially should not foist a design as a standard before there's a substantial track record of usage. How many large systems have already been written in this proposed ES4 design? E is a much smaller language than ES3, but it has evolved substantially in ways that surprised me, based on actual experience trying to use the language. > [...] Brendan Eich > has repeatedly explained why a multiplicity of languages on the web is > infeasible, e.g. at the URL Jeff Dyer linked to > (http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/2504). Are you referring to the post at <http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/2504#comment-37607>? I'll wait for a response before responding further to this point. > So obstructing the progress > of JS and consequently the open web in the name of preserving the purity > of a "platonic ideal" of JavaScript strikes me as either a mistake of > philosophical extremism, a convenient cover for conflicted business > interests, or a combination of both. I have now learned ES3 itself quite well. I would not describe it as a platonic ideal of anything. I think ES3 is already too large, and it has many broken features (with, this-capture, pervasive mutability, lack of encapsulation, silent errors, for/in loop dangers, ...). The question we are discussing is which direction constitutes progress. Your response assumes your conclusion. Language vendors and standards committees, constrained by upwards compatibility, can only grow their language. Once a language gets too large, the best that we can hope for is that they grow it slowly, incrementally, and conservatively. Java 1.5 came after Java 1.4, and it adds many features to Java 1.4. All the additional features added are each individually arguably good ideas, and recapitulate some of the elements of ES4's list. Does this imply that Java 1.5 represents progress over Java 1.4? In this case, I am quite familiar with the language both before and after. The process by which 1.5 evolved from 1.4 was much more experience driven and much more incremental than what I see here. Nevertheless, IMO, Java 1.5 is a substantially worse language that Java 1.4. The "convenient cover for conflicted business interests" comment is the sort of ad hominem nonsense that I hope we can avoid in further discussions. I have known both Doug Crockford and Allan Wirfs-Brock for years before they joined Yahoo and Microsoft respectively. The suggestion that either would act with less than integrity in order to serve their corporate interests, I find ludicrous and offensive. > Finally, just to reiterate that the "it's a different language" charge > glosses a critical aspect of the ES4 proposal, namely backwards > compatibility. ES4 is not a new language. It is, as the overview > describes, a significant evolution of ES3. C++ is approximately backwards compatible with C. With a small number of changes, it could have been precisely backwards compatible. Should we consider C++ to be merely a significant evolution of C? The additions that C++ makes to C are larger than the C language itself. >From the list from the ES4 abstract I quote above, I fear this may be true of ES4 vs ES3. -- Text by me above is hereby placed in the public domain Cheers, --MarkM _______________________________________________ Es4-discuss mailing list Es4-discuss@... https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es4-discuss |
|
|
Re: [TLUG]: ECMAScript ("Javascript") Version 4 - FALSE ALARM
by Robert Sayre-2
::
Rate this Message:
On 10/28/07, Mark Miller <erights@...> wrote:
> > But even if you have succeeded at integrating together more good ideas > into a coherent language design than have many previous brilliant > language designers, I have another concern: Standards bodies should > not do de-novo design. JS has evolved since IE6 was released. Many of the "new" features are already available in ActionScript, Mozilla, Opera, and elsewhere. The language design also relieves pressure on library designers, each of whom must write essentially the same wrappers on core types, the same type-checking routines, and on and on. Too much code that "fixes" the language is being sent over the wire, and JavaScript or built-in browser objects must continually evolve to avoid that. ES4 seems like a much better base to push out innovation to libraries (notice you'll find very little new "standard lib" stuff in ES4). > > The "convenient cover for conflicted business interests" comment is > the sort of ad hominem nonsense that I hope we can avoid in further > discussions. Well, in principle I agree, and I think it is best to be avoid discussing motivations when possible. In this case, your message is just latest in series of "it's too ______", where the blank is some subjective quality. This one is longer, with a calmer tone, but I still don't see much substance. If the language is as radical and complicated departure as you say it is, it should be easy to find bugs in the design. -- Robert Sayre "I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time." _______________________________________________ Es4-discuss mailing list Es4-discuss@... https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es4-discuss |
|
|
Re: [TLUG]: ECMAScript ("Javascript") Version 4 - FALSE ALARM
by Robert Sayre-2
::
Rate this Message:
On 10/28/07, Robert Sayre <sayrer@...> wrote:
> > If the language is as radical and > complicated departure as you say it is, it should be easy to find bugs > in the design. I should add: I have been following AdSafe and Google Caja with interest. But I don't see how ES4 makes your subset any bigger, unless it has new features authors need/want. :) It's not all disagreement, though. One aspect of Google Caja seems preferable to me: the JSON object. In fact, I would like the committee to drop the JSON methods on the object prototype in favor of letting host environments provide that API. <https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=387522> Fighting over the name is pointless. It's not a good name, and web developers call it "JavaScript". It seems like the right choice to represent the output of the ECMA committee, though. -- Robert Sayre "I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time." _______________________________________________ Es4-discuss mailing list Es4-discuss@... https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es4-discuss |
|
|
Re: [TLUG]: ECMAScript ("Javascript") Version 4 - FALSE ALARM
by Brendan Eich-2
::
Rate this Message:
On Oct 28, 2007, at 2:16 PM, Robert Sayre wrote:
Beyond what has happened since MIcrosoft tried to stagnate the web, ES4 takes into account solid (and far from novel) research from the '90s on generic functions (Dylan, Cecil) and structural types (Modula 3, others), both of which are variously hard-coded or latent in JavaScript: see the existing +, <, and other operators; see also object and array duck types used for data definitions, JSON, and the like, with ad-hoc shape-testing code enforcing the latent type discipline (e.g. MochiKit's Base.isArrayLike). The most novel aspect of ES4 is the gradual typing support (Siek and Taha; Flanagan et al.), but this machinery (like, wrap, the compatibility type relation) is almost trivial to prove. You could argue that it is not worth including, but putting scare quotes (or scare-Latinisms) around it to make it seem bleeding-edge would be bogus. ES4 is not radically new and risky. No one criticizing it in general, vague, and by some reports misleading terms has produced specific evidence to the contrary. But I'll go further, to call out what may be a disagreement over the proper function of standards bodies. I believe that standards bodies should synthesize well-studied, relevant research results, implementation extensions shipped for years in derived dialects, and pragmatic solutions to small bugs in the existing language defined by the standard body, when working on the next version of the standard. Whatever the motivations of ES4 critics, the assertion that standards bodies should not host such collaborative, developer- and user-oriented work means in practice that big companies will dominate standards bodies, as I wrote here recently. That may be fine for pay-to-play consortia and their biggest (and best-paying) members. It is not good for developers, users, small and medium size vendors, or the public in general. /be _______________________________________________ Es4-discuss mailing list Es4-discuss@... https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es4-discuss |
|
|
Re: Re: [TLUG]: ECMAScript ("Javascript") Version 4 - FALSE ALARM
by Douglas Crockford
::
Rate this Message:
Robert Sayre wrote:
> Fighting over the name is pointless. It's not a good name, and web > developers call it "JavaScript". The name is exactly the point. A new language should have a new name. The deltas from ES3 to the proposed language are larger than ES3 itself. Claims of backward compatibility do not change the fact that there is more than enough new material in the proposal to make it a new language. But at this point in time I would resist standardizing the new language simply because we do not have enough practical experience with it to know if it is good enough to be worth standardizing. I can think of one instance in history when a standards committee produced a good, new design, and that was a long time ago. The current proposal is no Algol 60. It's not even an Algol 68. ES3, aka JavaScript, aka JScript, aka ECMAScript is a small language with a lot of, as you say, not good names. I am in favor of making careful and modest improvements to the language, correcting as much as possible the problems that are most troublesome to actual usage. As responsible stewards of the language, we should not be trying to transform ECMAScript into something else. I don't care what you call your new strongly typed classical language, as long as you don't call it JavaScript or ECMAScript. _______________________________________________ Es4-discuss mailing list Es4-discuss@... https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es4-discuss |
|
|
Re: Re: [TLUG]: ECMAScript ("Javascript") Version 4 - FALSE ALARM
by Robert Sayre-2
::
Rate this Message:
On 10/28/07, Douglas Crockford <douglas@...> wrote:
> > As responsible stewards of the language, we should... ...discuss technical issues. I encourage you to begin doing so. -- Robert Sayre "I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time." _______________________________________________ Es4-discuss mailing list Es4-discuss@... https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es4-discuss |
|
|
Re: [TLUG]: ECMAScript ("Javascript") Version 4 - FALSE ALARM
by Mark Miller-2
::
Rate this Message:
On 10/28/07, Robert Sayre <sayrer@...> wrote:
> It's not all disagreement, though. One aspect of Google Caja seems > preferable to me: the JSON object. In fact, I would like the committee > to drop the JSON methods on the object prototype in favor of letting > host environments provide that API. I agree. Let's also not add .toJSONString() and .fromJSONString() to the language. .toJSONString() creates quoting confusions that can lead to XSS-like vulnerabilities <http://google-caja.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/src/js/com/google/caja/JSON.js>. .fromJSONString() is inappropriate as a method of String. A String can represent source text of any of a large variety of languages. Each language should know how to parse Strings. Strings should not know how to be parsed in any particular language. We should follow the object design principle that Rebecca Wirfs-Brock calls "responsibility based design". However, Rebecca is related to the evil Allan of Microsoft, so perhaps responsibility based design is part of some evil corporate plot? Or maybe we should evaluate the logic of what people are saying independent of their corporate affiliation? -- Text by me above is hereby placed in the public domain Cheers, --MarkM _______________________________________________ Es4-discuss mailing list Es4-discuss@... https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es4-discuss |
|
|
Re: [TLUG]: ECMAScript ("Javascript") Version 4 - FALSE ALARM
by Andrew Dupont-2
::
Rate this Message:
On Oct 28, 2007, at 7:36 PM, Robert Sayre wrote:
> On 10/28/07, Douglas Crockford <douglas@...> wrote: >> >> As responsible stewards of the language, we should... > > ...discuss technical issues. I encourage you to begin doing so. I can see this escalating very quickly, so let me try to get ahead of it: Douglas, would you be satisfied if only the name were changed and nothing else? Or is the underlying issue the perceived scope creep and personality change from ES3 to ES4? Robert (and others) have responded as though it were the former. But it feels like the latter; if so let's frame it that way. Cheers, Andrew > > > -- > > Robert Sayre > > "I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time." > _______________________________________________ > Es4-discuss mailing list > Es4-discuss@... > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es4-discuss _______________________________________________ Es4-discuss mailing list Es4-discuss@... https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es4-discuss |
| < Prev | 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 | Next > |
| Free embeddable forum powered by Nabble | Forum Help |
