Fwd: [TLUG]: ECMAScript ("Javascript") Version 4 - FALSE ALARM

[Ric Johnson]

Thanks for the clarification Alex.

On 10/29/2007, "Alex Russell" <alex@...> wrote:

>On Monday 29 October 2007 3:05 pm, Ric Johnson wrote:
>> >Who, besides Doug Crockford, would be among those "several
>>
>> people"?
>> I believe some Dojo people were against the new ES4, and I did here
>> two people sitting next to me reflect that (sorry I do not know who
>> they were)
>
>Just to be *very* clear, the Dojo community is not monolithic. Opinions
>of ES4 inside Dojo span the entire gamut, from fully in favor to
>dead-set against. Dojo, as a project, has no official stance.
>
>Regards
>
>--
>Alex Russell
>alex@...     A99F 8785 F491 D5FD 04D7 ACD9 4158 FFDF 2894 6876
>alex@... BE03 E88D EABB 2116 CC49 8259 CF78 E242 59C3 9723

_______________________________________________
Es4-discuss mailing list
Es4-discuss@...
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es4-discuss

[Brendan Eich-2]

On Oct 29, 2007, at 3:05 PM, Ric Johnson wrote:

>> bad, because if I had, you would have heard another side to the
>> story, and a vigorous debate, and then probably we wouldn't be
>> playing this "how long have you been beating your wife?" game. Which
>> I refuse to play.
>
> Um... I am not accusing you or anyone. This is what was said at the  
> TAE,
> but not by me

Yes, but you're repeating what was said, including some assumed  
premises I want to argue about first.

> I did read it.  However, I do beleive Doug's quote was "half of the of
> the working group did NOT agree, but it is being pushed through
> anyway".  I wrote this down word for word at the time, but may have
> attributed incorrectly.

Wow, I can't tell what Doug said now, since he just today told me  
that he included Opera among the pro-ES4 sub-group, and 3 is greater  
than 2. Perhaps John Resig, who was on the panel, can testify. Not  
that we need to dwell on what Doug said :-/.

Since you are repeating more dubious claims, possibly from Doug, I'll  
repeat that TG1's majority outnumbers its minority, counting  
companies active over the last two years, by four to two. By people  
including invited experts, more like seven or eight to three. But in  
any event, this is an Ecma and potentially ISO issue, and unanimity  
is not required to make progress on a draft standard.

>> of being mentally dim. He called a press conference to deny the
>> allegation, which did not help. I'm not that dumb, so I'm going to
>> reject your question and ask you to justify its premise. If we don't
>> share premises, there's no point arguing conclusions.
>
> I never said you were dumb- quite the opposite,

That was supposed to be a humorous aside; never mind.

> but I fail to see how
> rejecting the question gets us anywhere.

See below about arguing premises before questioning anyone based on  
conclusions based on the premises.

>>> Can anyone else comment HOW either party would benfit if this did
>>> happen?
>>
>> Can you stop assuming your conclusion (Adobe/Mozilla conspiracy) for
>> a minute and examine its premise (which can be addressed by looking
>> at public materials on exactly who created ES4 as proposed in TG1)?
>
> I have reviewed quite a few docs, although I may have missed more.  I
> like ES4 and thank you for your hard work.  However, my question still
> stands.

If your question is about motives for companies in favor of ES4 as  
proposed, then I can answer only for Mozilla. If you are asking me to  
prove a negative -- to disprove a hidden agenda, a secret Adobe/
Mozilla (Opera/MbedThis/UC Santa Cruz/Northeastern University)  
pecuniary or other supposedly malign interest of some sort served by  
ES4, then you are laboring under a fallacy (can't prove a negative).

>> Frankly, I think you are approaching the claims that I've seen
>> attributed to Doug Crockford at The Ajax Experience a bit
>> credulously. Since I was not there to give the other side, or at
>> least one other side, let's back up from taking Doug's claims as
>> gospel truth and putting other groups on trial based on one person's
>> statements.
>
> You are correct sir:  I do respect Doug and thus lent weight to the
> argument, but I also respect John Resig, who was at the conference.  
> The
> differing opinions is why we are having these discussions.

My understanding is that John, who has not participated in TG1, did  
not try to rebut anything Doug said, but simply affirm that he was  
enthusiastic about JS2 and that Mozilla was committed to ES4.

Let's step back from personal authority and who said what. Mozilla's  
position, is that standards should address unmet use-cases and actual  
bugs in prior editions of a standard, and work to address them  
without a-priori restrictions on things like competitive positions in  
the market, or even size or "mood" of programming language as  
perceived by some of its fans. Standards should evolve in the open,  
sometimes rapidly, to incorporate sound research results and real-
world feedback.

And make no mistake: JS developers have real problems using JS1/ES3  
at scale, both because of limitations in current implementations, and  
because of the small design of the language (see Guy Steele's  
"Growing a Language" talk, please!).

This is why Mozilla has invested in ES4.

/be
_______________________________________________
Es4-discuss mailing list
Es4-discuss@...
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es4-discuss

[zwetan-3]

from what I can understand ES4 seems to bother some people

is it because of fear of change, fear of competition, or whatever
software politics,
I don't know and I don't care

but I do know this, if me, the little guy, could access this mailling list,
the different wiki, ask questions etc.
why the hell microsoft and yahoo, or whatever other party being
against this ES4 proposal
could not just do the same and participate ?

so sorry I don't buy the "ECMAScript must change its name"
and I don't buy either the "ES4 is too large, blah blah , it change
too much ES3".

languages are meant to evolve, I waited long enought as a coder to see
ES evolve,
didn't liked at all the ES4 draft of 99, didn't liked the JScript.NET
implementation,
and didn't liked either the AS2 implementation, but what we have now
in the current
proposal is good, it really evolved in the right direction keeping the
dynamism that I always loved in ES3, and I didn't see it evolve from
yesterday it's been months all that is being
discussed.

And all that obviously in the open as I, the little monkey, could even
read all that.

zwetan

ps: thanks a lot for Guy Steele's talk link :)
_______________________________________________
Es4-discuss mailing list
Es4-discuss@...
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es4-discuss

[Brendan Eich-2]

On Oct 29, 2007, at 3:06 PM, Neil Mix wrote:

What would Adobe and Mozilla possibly have to make a "deal"  

concerning?

Its probably the case that the head decision makers of Mozilla and the

head decision makers at Adobe have never met each other, much less  

made

a "deal".

I'll play devil's advocate for a moment, and say "Tamarin".  It goes  

like this: someone claims Adobe and Mozilla are in cahoots, and that  

triggers the memory that Adobe open-sourced its AS engine to Mozilla,  

and then the wheels start turning.  It's a lazy thought process, of  

course, because what's really gained?  Did they team up to make sure  

the spec results in as little modification to Tamarin as possible?   

So they're teaming up out of laziness?  I don't get it either, but  

you asked.

As the press release noted, Tamarin was open-sourced to share effort and accelerate development (and inform specification!) of a sound, implementable, high-performance ES4. I think I can say that without speaking too much for Adobe.

Also, and this is edgier: it's not as if Macromedia (remember, it was Macromedia who developed the VM originally) wanted to bear the cost of a high-performance VM all by itself. To add relevant information at the risk of dishing a rumor (sue me), I heard that Macromedia originally tried to license an existing small VM, and started on what became Tamarin only after being denied that license.

I'll also testify, as an outsider with no interest in Adobe, that the Adobe (originally Macromedia) employees on TG1 have always worked from shared principles and evidence to reach better design decisions, without regard for a corporate agenda. In particular, they've been willing to develop changes -- even if those changes inflicted incompatibilities on ActionScript users. I've heard this came at some political cost inside Adobe; it's not hard to imagine marketeers and evangelists there who might prefer a rubber-stamp.

But ES4 is not AS3, and it differs enough (see http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=clarification:adobe_as3) that the claim that Adobe is forcing something it owns, without thoughtful changes, through a rubber-stamp process, is demonstrably false. (Rubber-stamped standards exist; you may have heard of OOXML?)

Of course Adobe desires to standardize, even at the cost of incompatibility. Reduced developer brainprint from variant dialects of JS is in their interest, and in their developers' interest. How nefarious.

/be

_______________________________________________
Es4-discuss mailing list
Es4-discuss@...
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es4-discuss

[Jeff Dyer]

On 10/29/07 4:51 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:

On Oct 29, 2007, at 3:06 PM, Neil Mix wrote:

What would Adobe and Mozilla possibly have to make a "deal"  
concerning?
Its probably the case that the head decision makers of Mozilla and the
head decision makers at Adobe have never met each other, much less  
made
a "deal".
 

I'll play devil's advocate for a moment, and say "Tamarin".  It goes  
like this: someone claims Adobe and Mozilla are in cahoots, and that  
triggers the memory that Adobe open-sourced its AS engine to Mozilla,  
and then the wheels start turning.  It's a lazy thought process, of  
course, because what's really gained?  Did they team up to make sure  
the spec results in as little modification to Tamarin as possible?   
So they're teaming up out of laziness?  I don't get it either, but  
you asked.

As the press release <http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/press/mozilla-2006-11-07.html>  noted, Tamarin was open-sourced to share effort and accelerate development (and inform specification!) of a sound, implementable, high-performance ES4. I think I can say that without speaking too much for Adobe.

Yes, you can. And its still true.

Also, and this is edgier: it's not as if Macromedia (remember, it was Macromedia who developed the VM originally) wanted to bear the cost of a high-performance VM all by itself. To add relevant information at the risk of dishing a rumor (sue me), I heard that Macromedia originally tried to license an existing small VM, and started on what became Tamarin only after being denied that license.

True or not, I’m sure glad Adobe was denied that option. Open standards and open vms will work out better for Adobe customers and web users in general.

I'll also testify, as an outsider with no interest in Adobe, that the Adobe (originally Macromedia) employees on TG1 have always worked from shared principles and evidence to reach better design decisions, without regard for a corporate agenda. In particular, they've been willing to develop changes -- even if those changes inflicted incompatibilities on ActionScript users. I've heard this came at some political cost inside Adobe; it's not hard to imagine marketeers and evangelists there who might prefer a rubber-stamp.

Thanks Brendan.

But ES4 is not AS3, and it differs enough (see http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=clarification:adobe_as3) that the claim that Adobe is forcing something it owns, without thoughtful changes, through a rubber-stamp process, is demonstrably false. (Rubber-stamped standards exist; you may have heard of OOXML?)

Of course Adobe desires to standardize, even at the cost of incompatibility. Reduced developer brainprint from variant dialects of JS is in their interest, and in their developers' interest. How nefarious.

“A rising tide lifts all boats”. A better web will become a bigger web. This is good for Adobe, and just about everyone else on this list.

Any questions?

Jd

/be

---

_______________________________________________
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

[Chris Pine-2]

Brendan Eich wrote:

> I'll also testify, as an outsider with no interest in Adobe, that the
> Adobe (originally Macromedia) employees on TG1 have always worked from
> shared principles and evidence to reach better design decisions, without
> regard for a corporate agenda.

I would like to confirm this as well, as a competing browser vendor and
fellow member of TG1.  The direction ES4 has taken is the result of user
feedback and internal experience with the extensions each of the
involved companies has made, as well as honest attempts to promote
implementation compatibility (always a concern for minority browsers,
though only a concern for the majority browser when it suits them
politically).

Chris Pine
Opera Software
_______________________________________________
Es4-discuss mailing list
Es4-discuss@...
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es4-discuss

[Chris Pine-2]

Ric Johnson wrote:
> I did read it.  However, I do beleive Doug's quote was "half of the of
> the working group did NOT agree, but it is being pushed through
> anyway".  I wrote this down word for word at the time, but may have
> attributed incorrectly.

I'm not sure how Doug could have honestly said this, but whatever was
said:  this is simply untrue, no matter how you count.

There were 3 dissenting people (from 2 companies) for the last year.  On
the other hand, there were 8 people (from 4 companies and 2
universities) in favor, for 2 years (or 7, depending on how you count it).

If you look at the amount of work put forth (discussion, ref-impl,
testing, bug-tracking), the disparity becomes staggering.  (Well, work
that has been done in the open, anyway.)  The amount of time and care
that has gone into ES4 as we are proposing simply dwarfs the weak,
inconsistent attempts to halt the work.

To suggest that there is a 50/50 split in the group is simply absurd.

Chris Pine
Opera Software

_______________________________________________
Es4-discuss mailing list
Es4-discuss@...
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es4-discuss

[Thomas Reilly]

Okay, good to air things out I suppose.  If we wanted to use Tamarin as leverage to keep ES4 as close to AS3 as possible we're extremely incompetent (as evidenced by ES4's progress beyond AS3).  Luckily, we have some competencies.  Tamarin was well designed and shouldn't have to change too much but the compiler guys will have their hands full!

Hopefully the end result of all this is folks that should be participating in ES4's development and aren't start to.  Better late than never I suppose, although if my ES4 spec isn't printed out and heavily dog eared by XMas 08 I might have to sucker punch Santa.  Having personally had my ideas sandbagged by committees (all hail J2EE) I'm cheering TG1 to the finish line with or without additional participation.  It should be noted I don't directly particpate in TG1, I'm just a well informed cheerleader.  Hopefully ES4 will start getting some more and more positive cheerleading in the blogosphere.

Its funny to hear this don't break the web stuff, its exactly the conversation that dominates every release of flash since one player runs all swf versions.   We routinely surprise ourselves with our ability to make sweeping changes to things and maintain backwards compatibility and I'm confident TG1 can do the same with ecmascript (and mozilla with its implementation).  I'm confident b/c as the stewards for Tamarin we'll be helping directly.

Regrettably we didn't have time to do what Brendan aims to do (run all script versions on one VM) but we knew it was possible and a good idea.  Its still sits pretty prominently on the shelf of un-realized pet projects.  Really you probably just want to keep the compiler separate I think.

Anyways, the main point is that if anyone starts fear-mongering about breaking the web they are probably either incompetent or have ulterior motives (or both).   Hopefully the sticker shock of the "its too big" reaction will be fleeting once folks realize there's measured reason and precedent behind the grab bag of features that the overview lays out.  

-----Original Message-----
From: es4-discuss-bounces@... on behalf of Neil Mix
Sent: Mon 10/29/2007 3:06 PM
To: Thomas Reilly
Cc: Dave Herman; es4-discuss@...; Ric Johnson
Subject: Re: [TLUG]: ECMAScript ("Javascript") Version 4 - FALSE ALARM
 

> What would Adobe and Mozilla possibly have to make a "deal"  
> concerning?
> Its probably the case that the head decision makers of Mozilla and the
> head decision makers at Adobe have never met each other, much less  
> made
> a "deal".

I'll play devil's advocate for a moment, and say "Tamarin".  It goes  
like this: someone claims Adobe and Mozilla are in cahoots, and that  
triggers the memory that Adobe open-sourced its AS engine to Mozilla,  
and then the wheels start turning.  It's a lazy thought process, of  
course, because what's really gained?  Did they team up to make sure  
the spec results in as little modification to Tamarin as possible?  
So they're teaming up out of laziness?  I don't get it either, but  
you asked.

_______________________________________________
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

[Chris Pine-2]

Ric Johnson wrote:
> I think the MAIN problem is not technical, but rather political:

Clearly.  Hence the lack of substantive argument against the proposal
and the recurring issue of the *name* of the language.


> When I went to the Ajax Expereince,  several people commented that
> 1) There was a 'deal' between Adobe and Mozilla

And Opera?  Yes, I am maybe the fourth or fifth person to point this
out, but perhaps if enough people say it, this can be the last time we
have to deal with this point.

There is no deal, no secret coalition.  The ES4 work has been open, and
has been the collaboration of more than two companies, frequently
competitors.  I think our motivations should be clear:  to improve the
web.  We have do a fair amount of in-house ecmascript development, and
ES4-as-proposed is simply a stronger, better language.  As Jeff so aptly
put it, "a rising tide lifts all boats".

And any concerns about ES4 destabilizing the web are either disingenuous
or simply ignorant:  no one is more concerned about breaking the web
than a minority browser vendor.  :)  The ES4 work has been both about
increasing the programming-in-the-large tools to the programmer, as well
as increasing implementation compatibility.  We run the reference
implementation against ES3 test suites to ensure backwards
compatibility.  When we say "it's backwards compatible", this isn't a
guess or a hope.

We can't bet Opera's future on guess or a hope.

If you want to continue programming is ES3, and leveraging existing ES3
code, that will be fine.  But for some ecmascript developers, it just
isn't enough for the platform the web has become.


> 2) There was not consensus on the new features, but they are being pushed
> through anyway

There has always been a clear majority.  There was never unanimous
agreement, nor is that necessary.  When you are voted down 8-to-3, to
say "there was no censensus" is to say "I will not accept that I did not
get my way".  In my opinion, such an attitude is disrespectful to the
other members of the committee (personally) and to the standards process
(professionally).  I would be ashamed if I conducted myself in such a
manner.

Chris Pine
Opera Software
_______________________________________________
Es4-discuss mailing list
Es4-discuss@...
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es4-discuss

[Chris Pine-2]

zwetan wrote:
> so sorry I don't buy the "ECMAScript must change its name"

No, of course not.  Nevermind that the scope of TG1 is "to standardize
the syntax and semantics of a general purpose, cross platform,
vendor-neutral dynamic scripting language called ECMAScript":

   http://www.ecma-international.org/memento/TC39-TG1.htm

I don't think that anyone believes there is honest concern that the name
of the language might confuse people about which language they are
getting.  ES3 programs will continue to work.

The push to change the name is a push to kill the ES4 proposal.  It's
that simple.

First you change the name.  Then you admit it's a new language, and thus
a new spec.  Incompatibilities with ES3 inevitably follow, in order to
incompatibly fix bugs (something we'd all like to do, but not at the
expense of breaking the web).  Browser vendors must then ship two
runtimes to support the new language (impossible on small devices),
while no work is required to truthfully claim "our browser has full
ecmascript support".  So small devices don't get it, IE doesn't do it,
and ES4 as proposed dies.

So I don't buy it either:  I don't believe that anyone arguing to change
the name thinks the language would thus succeed.  This rose, by any
other name, would not be smelled at all.

Chris Pine
Opera Software
_______________________________________________
Es4-discuss mailing list
Es4-discuss@...
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es4-discuss

[Kris Zyp-2]

From a pragmatic perspective, it seems to that the critical goal behind all of this, is what will bring a better development environment for the future of the web, and the key to this is what will be broadly implemented. The choice of the name is of course around this central issue since the ES title brings such a strong motivitation for implementation. However, if ~10 years down the road, ES4 is not implemented broadly enough that web developers can code to it, than it is of signficantly less value. While unanimity is not needed for a standard to be passed, if the one of the key browser vendors will not implement it, than how valuable are our efforts? I know that there are, or will be efforts to provide a Tamarin plugin for other browsers, but is this really what we are pinning our hope on? Plugins usually don't reach necessary distribution for developers to rely on them. Or are we hoping that the ES4 title will be sufficient to get an implementation from every vendor?

I certainly acknowledge that it is insidious that there might a suggestion to design around one member, but I will still ask, is there any concessions that can be made to increase the probability that MS would implement ES4 in the future? Perhaps this has already been discussed, so I apologize if it has. Does MS have specific issues, or is their dissent simply for the purpose of avoiding committing to implementation (regardless of the content of ES4)? Is security one of the main issues? Is it the size and scope of the language? From what I understand, I think these are Crockford's concerns, although I don't know if that is true for MS.

I think that if even 25% subset of ES4 was uniformly implemented in all browsers in 10 years, web developers would be vastly further along than if the 100% of ES4 was implemented in half the browsers. While unfortunate that such orthogonal issues could affect language design, and perhaps stifle innovation, I would like to see what will be best for the future of the web.

Does anybody know if there is anything that can be done to increase the likelood of full cross browser implementation of ES4? Does anyone know the issues or parts of ES4 that are causing dissent? Is it the impact of the size of the language (on security, implementability, etc)?

Apologies for my excessive pragmatism,

Kris

_______________________________________________
Es4-discuss mailing list
Es4-discuss@...
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es4-discuss

[Ric Johnson]

Please note that Microsoft HAS responded on my blog (with a reply from
Brendon and myself)

http://openajax.com/blog/

PLEASE note:  Although the domain is OpenAjax.Com, we are NOT part of the
Open Ajax Alliance (although I am the contributor or Openajax.Org to Jon
Ferraiolo )

I do not have any advertising or spam on my site, so please feel free to
visit and comment

Ric Johnson

On 10/30/2007, "Chris Pine" <chrispi@...> wrote:

>zwetan wrote:
>> so sorry I don't buy the "ECMAScript must change its name"
>
>No, of course not.  Nevermind that the scope of TG1 is "to standardize
>the syntax and semantics of a general purpose, cross platform,
>vendor-neutral dynamic scripting language called ECMAScript":
>
>   http://www.ecma-international.org/memento/TC39-TG1.htm
>
>I don't think that anyone believes there is honest concern that the name
>of the language might confuse people about which language they are
>getting.  ES3 programs will continue to work.
>
>The push to change the name is a push to kill the ES4 proposal.  It's
>that simple.
>
>First you change the name.  Then you admit it's a new language, and thus
>a new spec.  Incompatibilities with ES3 inevitably follow, in order to
>incompatibly fix bugs (something we'd all like to do, but not at the
>expense of breaking the web).  Browser vendors must then ship two
>runtimes to support the new language (impossible on small devices),
>while no work is required to truthfully claim "our browser has full
>ecmascript support".  So small devices don't get it, IE doesn't do it,
>and ES4 as proposed dies.
>
>So I don't buy it either:  I don't believe that anyone arguing to change
>the name thinks the language would thus succeed.  This rose, by any
>other name, would not be smelled at all.
>
>Chris Pine
>Opera Software
>_______________________________________________
>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

[Chris Pine-2]

Ric Johnson wrote:
> Please note that Microsoft HAS responded on my blog (with a reply from
> Brendon and myself)
>
> http://openajax.com/blog/

Yes, I read that.  I am extremely doubtful that Microsoft is suddenly so
concerned about browser compatibility for the benefit of the web.  (When
IE passes the Acid 2 test, let's talk again.)

It's nice that MS has constructed this document identifying browser
differences.  But frankly, this is too little, too late.  We are
painfully aware of the significant differences.  Suggesting that we all
sit down and strive to fix every last trivial discrepancy under the
guise of "browser compatibility" is manipulative and, from a business
standpoint, absurd.  It is an unnecessary task that would never be
completed.

In essence, it is just another stalling tactic.

Chris Pine
Opera Software
_______________________________________________
Es4-discuss mailing list
Es4-discuss@...
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es4-discuss

[Steven Johnson-8]

The suggestions of bloat and instability from some corners are rather
disingenuous when you consider that

(1) at least one high-quality ES4 engine (Tamarin) will be available with a
source license compatible with both open-source and commercial vendors, so
the claim that it will be hard for browser vendors to implement can
theoretically be reduced to a claim that it will be hard for browser vendors
to integrate. (Sure, there may be technical or political obstacles to using
a particular engine, but assuming that the ES4 spec will require every
browser vendor to write their own implementation is clearly false.)

(2) at least two active contributors to Tamarin (Adobe and Mozilla) have a
very high vested interest in keeping code size small, as the success of both
Flash Player and Firefox are predicated on acceptable download sizes.

As Tom pointed out, the compiler for ES4 will definitely get more complex,
but the VM is unlikely to grow significantly in size or complexity.

_______________________________________________
Es4-discuss mailing list
Es4-discuss@...
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es4-discuss

[Mark Miller-2]

On Oct 30, 2007 10:13 AM, Chris Pine <chrispi@...> wrote:

> Yes, I read that.  I am extremely doubtful that Microsoft is suddenly so
> concerned about browser compatibility for the benefit of the web.  (When
> IE passes the Acid 2 test, let's talk again.)
>
> It's nice that MS has constructed this document identifying browser
> differences.  But frankly, this is too little, too late.  We are
> painfully aware of the significant differences.  Suggesting that we all
> sit down and strive to fix every last trivial discrepancy under the
> guise of "browser compatibility" is manipulative and, from a business
> standpoint, absurd.  It is an unnecessary task that would never be
> completed.
>
> In essence, it is just another stalling tactic.

When I raised non-technical points critical of the ES4 proposal,
people rightly shot back with a "technical discussion only!" response,
which I've respected. Since then, most of the traffic on the list has
been non-technical criticisms of the critics of the ES4 proposal. Much
of this traffic, such as the message I quote above, continues to
speculate about the motives of others, rather than engaging with what
they are saying. My comments, which provoked so much response,
contained no such speculation. I can only conclude that, on this list,
the injunction "technical discussion only!" should be interpreted as
carrying the additional clause "unless you agree with us."


--
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

[Steven Johnson-8]

Ooo... busted! (And right after I send out a non-technical-related email.)

But yes, you are quite correct: we should probably go back to the original
charter of this list (technical discussion only) and move the political
issues to another venue.

> When I raised non-technical points critical of the ES4 proposal,
> people rightly shot back with a "technical discussion only!" response,
> which I've respected. Since then, most of the traffic on the list has
> been non-technical criticisms of the critics of the ES4 proposal. Much
> of this traffic, such as the message I quote above, continues to
> speculate about the motives of others, rather than engaging with what
> they are saying. My comments, which provoked so much response,
> contained no such speculation. I can only conclude that, on this list,
> the injunction "technical discussion only!" should be interpreted as
> carrying the additional clause "unless you agree with us."
>

_______________________________________________
Es4-discuss mailing list
Es4-discuss@...
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es4-discuss

[Michael O'Brien-4]

Totally agree that ES4 can be implemented without undue bloat. ES4 VMs
should remain small with modest growth despite the features being
considered for ES4.

We too are creating a compliant ES4 implementation to serve embedded
devices. So our target is not so much browsers, but small embedded
devices including mobile. Typical uses are mobile widget engines and
embedded web servers. Our implementation (EJScript to add yet another
name) is dual license: open source and commercial as are our previous
embedded projects. You won't see much on our web about this yet --
working too hard to complete our Alpha ;-), but we have both a Java and
C VM running the majority of the ES4 language already including most of
the big items: classes, packages, units, type annotations and have been
using it in some commercial products already. So we are field testing
ES4 features as we go.

Our all up target memory footprint is < 250K for a minimal script. We
are currently on target although we are missing some of the runtime
library. We have a split compile / VM design so this does not include
the compiler footprint. We have found that some of the ES4 features are
essential for us to get such a small base footprint. The improved typing
greatly enhances early binding and helps allows byte code sizes to be
reduced. Now if you have large programs and large object counts --
memory will go up of course.

I would STRONGLY urge that those who have concerns about the ES4 spec,
engage and try writing some code with ES4.  The features blend well and
the end result is a nice expressive language that keeps the old ES3
dynamism but adds powerful constructs for safer, more scalable programs.
It seems to wear well the more you use it. It also works well
incrementally where you can start with ES3 and selectively employ ES4
features as you wish.

Michael O'Brien


Steven Johnson wrote:

> The suggestions of bloat and instability from some corners are rather
> disingenuous when you consider that
>
> (1) at least one high-quality ES4 engine (Tamarin) will be available with a
> source license compatible with both open-source and commercial vendors, so
> the claim that it will be hard for browser vendors to implement can
> theoretically be reduced to a claim that it will be hard for browser vendors
> to integrate. (Sure, there may be technical or political obstacles to using
> a particular engine, but assuming that the ES4 spec will require every
> browser vendor to write their own implementation is clearly false.)
>
> (2) at least two active contributors to Tamarin (Adobe and Mozilla) have a
> very high vested interest in keeping code size small, as the success of both
> Flash Player and Firefox are predicated on acceptable download sizes.
>
> As Tom pointed out, the compiler for ES4 will definitely get more complex,
> but the VM is unlikely to grow significantly in size or complexity.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

[wycats]

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 30, 2007, at 11:15 AM, Michael O'Brien <mob@...> wrote:

> Totally agree that ES4 can be implemented without undue bloat. ES4 VMs
> should remain small with modest growth despite the features being
> considered for ES4.
>
> We too are creating a compliant ES4 implementation to serve embedded
> devices. So our target is not so much browsers, but small embedded
> devices including mobile. Typical uses are mobile widget engines and
> embedded web servers. Our implementation (EJScript to add yet another
> name) is dual license: open source and commercial as are our previous
> embedded projects. You won't see much on our web about this yet --
> working too hard to complete our Alpha ;-), but we have both a Java  
> and
> C VM running the majority of the ES4 language already including most  
> of
> the big items: classes, packages, units, type annotations and have  
> been
> using it in some commercial products already. So we are field testing
> ES4 features as we go.
>
> Our all up target memory footprint is < 250K for a minimal script. We
> are currently on target although we are missing some of the runtime
> library. We have a split compile / VM design so this does not include
> the compiler footprint. We have found that some of the ES4 features  
> are
> essential for us to get such a small base footprint. The improved  
> typing
> greatly enhances early binding and helps allows byte code sizes to be
> reduced. Now if you have large programs and large object counts --
> memory will go up of course.
>
> I would STRONGLY urge that those who have concerns about the ES4 spec,
> engage and try writing some code with ES4.  The features blend well  
> and
> the end result is a nice expressive language that keeps the old ES3
> dynamism but adds powerful constructs for safer, more scalable  
> programs.
> It seems to wear well the more you use it. It also works well
> incrementally where you can start with ES3 and selectively employ ES4
> features as you wish.
>
> Michael O'Brien
>
>
> Steven Johnson wrote:
>> The suggestions of bloat and instability from some corners are rather
>> disingenuous when you consider that
>>
>> (1) at least one high-quality ES4 engine (Tamarin) will be  
>> available with a
>> source license compatible with both open-source and commercial  
>> vendors, so
>> the claim that it will be hard for browser vendors to implement can
>> theoretically be reduced to a claim that it will be hard for  
>> browser vendors
>> to integrate. (Sure, there may be technical or political obstacles  
>> to using
>> a particular engine, but assuming that the ES4 spec will require  
>> every
>> browser vendor to write their own implementation is clearly false.)
>>
>> (2) at least two active contributors to Tamarin (Adobe and Mozilla)  
>> have a
>> very high vested interest in keeping code size small, as the  
>> success of both
>> Flash Player and Firefox are predicated on acceptable download sizes.
>>
>> As Tom pointed out, the compiler for ES4 will definitely get more  
>> complex,
>> but the VM is unlikely to grow significantly in size or complexity.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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

_______________________________________________
Es4-discuss mailing list
Es4-discuss@...
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es4-discuss

[Maciej Stachowiak]

On Oct 30, 2007, at 10:45 AM, Steven Johnson wrote:

> The suggestions of bloat and instability from some corners are rather
> disingenuous when you consider that
>
> (1) at least one high-quality ES4 engine (Tamarin) will be available  
> with a
> source license compatible with both open-source and commercial  
> vendors, so
> the claim that it will be hard for browser vendors to implement can
> theoretically be reduced to a claim that it will be hard for browser  
> vendors
> to integrate. (Sure, there may be technical or political obstacles  
> to using
> a particular engine, but assuming that the ES4 spec will require every
> browser vendor to write their own implementation is clearly false.)
>
> (2) at least two active contributors to Tamarin (Adobe and Mozilla)  
> have a
> very high vested interest in keeping code size small, as the success  
> of both
> Flash Player and Firefox are predicated on acceptable download sizes.
>
> As Tom pointed out, the compiler for ES4 will definitely get more  
> complex,
> but the VM is unlikely to grow significantly in size or complexity.

For embedded browser-hosted implementations (like Safari on the iPhone  
and iPod touch, or Nokia's S60 Browser), it's important for it to be  
possible to implement a complier that is small in memory use and code  
footprint, not just a VM. I have not yet read the spec in enough  
detail to know if this is the case. But your points seem to primarily  
address VM size, and to my knowledge the Flash download only includes  
the VM, not a compiler.

Can anyone address feasibility of a small full implementation (source  
code all the way to execution)?

Regards,
Maciej

_______________________________________________
Es4-discuss mailing list
Es4-discuss@...
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es4-discuss

[Brendan Eich-2]

On Oct 30, 2007, at 10:49 AM, Mark Miller wrote:

On Oct 30, 2007 10:13 AM, Chris Pine <chrispi@...> wrote:

Yes, I read that.  I am extremely doubtful that Microsoft is suddenly so

concerned about browser compatibility for the benefit of the web.  (When

IE passes the Acid 2 test, let's talk again.)

It's nice that MS has constructed this document identifying browser

differences.  But frankly, this is too little, too late.  We are

painfully aware of the significant differences.  Suggesting that we all

sit down and strive to fix every last trivial discrepancy under the

guise of "browser compatibility" is manipulative and, from a business

standpoint, absurd.  It is an unnecessary task that would never be

completed.

In essence, it is just another stalling tactic.

When I raised non-technical points critical of the ES4 proposal,

people rightly shot back with a "technical discussion only!" response,

No, that's not what Rob Sayre wrote -- he said (in a later post) that you (among others) were trash-talking without any technical substance. Rob wrote:

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.

That's different from saying "technical discussion only." It is not a demand for exclusively technical criticism. It is a request to stop unsubstantiated FUD.

which I've respected. Since then, most of the traffic on the list has

been non-technical criticisms of the critics of the ES4 proposal.

Guess why? Because the critics have made no technical objections on this list, and some carefully parsed (in Yehuda Katz's phrase; I wasn't there and I really can't tell what was said) statements about the politics and division within Ecma TC39-TG1 by Doug Crockford at last week's The Ajax Experience in Boston.

Of course people are going to argue about the political fight spilling out of TG1, and we may as well argue here. It's not as if pretending this political fight is not happening, or that it has no consequences on ES4, serves anyone's interest except those trying to stop ES4 from making it out of Ecma. It's not as if we have a better venue.

Much

of this traffic, such as the message I quote above, continues to

speculate about the motives of others, rather than engaging with what

they are saying.

Chris Pine is on TG1 and a witness to what's going on. He is not sowing unsubstantiated FUD, he is talking about what he has observed happening inside TG1, and giving his interpretation of it. He could be wrong, but his message is not simply speculation.

Politics inevitably involve motives and conflicts of interest, apart from purely "technical" concerns genuinely expressed. And as should be very clear by now, the objections to the proposed ES4 that TG1 members have heard are either non-technical, or technical only in a vacuously general sense.

My comments, which provoked so much response,

contained no such speculation.

No, you merely called ES4 a train wreck and a runaway standard, by repeating what you heard from someone at OOPSLA. In my book, that's much worse than speculating about Microsoft's motives or business interests.

Please note that I'm not talking about individuals who work for Microsoft, many of whom are fine people who may hold sincere technical opinions about ES4 as proposed, or at least their understanding of it. I'm talking about the company's business interests, its strategies.

Microsoft's interests and strategies are absolutely critical to consider when developers ask about the future of ES4, as Kris Zyp just did -- and I am going to respond to him on this list. My response will contain technical as well as political content.

I can only conclude that, on this list,

the injunction "technical discussion only!" should be interpreted as

carrying the additional clause "unless you agree with us."

You never heard "technical discussion only", and no one ever demanded agreement with some mythical "us". You've made a straw man and knocked it down.

/be

_______________________________________________
Es4-discuss mailing list
Es4-discuss@...
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es4-discuss