Prev: javascript standard libraries
Next: javascript (ecmascript) libraries
From: Lasse Reichstein Nielsen on 27 Nov 2009 01:16
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars(a)web.de> writes:

> Jorge wrote:
>
>> Acrobat JavaScript is a language based on the core of JavaScript
>> version 1.5 of ISO-16262, formerly known as ECMAScript, an object-
>> oriented scripting language developed by Netscape Communications.
>
> Utter nonsense.

When people say more than one thing, it's a good idea to say which
part you think is nonsense. And why.

/L
--
Lasse Reichstein Holst Nielsen
'Javascript frameworks is a disruptive technology'

From: Jorge on 27 Nov 2009 04:20
On Nov 27, 12:18 am, Garrett Smith <dhtmlkitc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [3]http://www.latenightsw.com/sd4/

The correct url for that is:

http://www.latenightsw.com/freeware/JavaScriptOSA/index.html
--
Jorge.
From: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn on 27 Nov 2009 15:32
Lasse Reichstein Nielsen wrote:

> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars(a)web.de> writes:
>> Jorge wrote:
>>> Acrobat JavaScript is a language based on the core of JavaScript
>>> version 1.5 of ISO-16262, formerly known as ECMAScript, an object-
>>> oriented scripting language developed by Netscape Communications.
>>
>> Utter nonsense.
>
> When people say more than one thing, it's a good idea to say which
> part you think is nonsense. And why.

It's awfully wrong/gibberish as a whole, that's why it deserves to be called
utter nonsense and nothing less. The person(s) writing it has/have had
either no clue what they were writing about, or they were not particularly
skilled in writing English (or a technical explanation to begin with). That
is even more regrettable as the person(s) cited appear(s) to be affiliated
with Adobe which does not bode well for the usefulness of Adobe JavaScript
(and experience tends to confirm that).

"JavaScript version 1.5 of ISO-16262"?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
JavaScript (version) 1.5 is an (Netscape's, lately Mozilla.org's)
implementation of ECMA-262-3. JavaScript (1.5) is _not_ a version of
ISO-16262. There is no ISO-16262 to begin with; there is ISO/IEC 16262, a
*later* ISO/IEC revision of ECMA-262-3 if you will (maybe with some
ECMA-262-3 errata fixed, as John Stockton likes to point out).

"formerly known as ECMAScript"?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
JavaScript is _not_ "formerly known as ECMAScript". It is an
*implementation of* the original ECMAScript standard (or, vice-versa,
ECMAScript attempts to standardize the features that JavaScript and its
forks [most notably JScript] have in common at the time of its writing).

ISO/IEC 16262 is _not_ "formerly known as ECMAScript" either. The title of
that international standard is (like the original) "ECMAScript Language
Specification, Edition 3". Neither ISO/IEC 16262 nor ECMAScript was
developed (solely) by Netscape Communications.

JavaScript, on the other hand, *was* developed (solely) by Netscape
Communications, until *excluding* JavaScript 1.5, when the code of Netscape
Navigator along with Client-side JavaScript 1.3 became Open Source Software
in the Mozilla project organized through the Mozilla Organization
(Mozilla.org).


PointedEars
--
Prototype.js was written by people who don't know javascript for people
who don't know javascript. People who don't know javascript are not
the best source of advice on designing systems that use javascript.
-- Richard Cornford, cljs, <f806at$ail$1$8300dec7(a)news.demon.co.uk>
From: Lasse Reichstein Nielsen on 27 Nov 2009 17:32
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars(a)web.de> writes:

> Lasse Reichstein Nielsen wrote:
>
>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars(a)web.de> writes:
>>> Jorge wrote:
>>>> Acrobat JavaScript is a language based on the core of JavaScript
>>>> version 1.5 of ISO-16262, formerly known as ECMAScript, an object-
>>>> oriented scripting language developed by Netscape Communications.
>>>
>>> Utter nonsense.
>>
>> When people say more than one thing, it's a good idea to say which
>> part you think is nonsense. And why.
>
> It's awfully wrong/gibberish as a whole, that's why it deserves to be called
> utter nonsense and nothing less. The person(s) writing it has/have had
> either no clue what they were writing about, or they were not particularly
> skilled in writing English (or a technical explanation to begin with). That
> is even more regrettable as the person(s) cited appear(s) to be affiliated
> with Adobe which does not bode well for the usefulness of Adobe JavaScript
> (and experience tends to confirm that).
>
> "JavaScript version 1.5 of ISO-16262"?
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> JavaScript (version) 1.5 is an (Netscape's, lately Mozilla.org's)
> implementation of ECMA-262-3. JavaScript (1.5) is _not_ a version of
> ISO-16262. There is no ISO-16262 to begin with; there is ISO/IEC 16262, a
> *later* ISO/IEC revision of ECMA-262-3 if you will (maybe with some
> ECMA-262-3 errata fixed, as John Stockton likes to point out).
>
> "formerly known as ECMAScript"?
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> JavaScript is _not_ "formerly known as ECMAScript". It is an
> *implementation of* the original ECMAScript standard (or, vice-versa,
> ECMAScript attempts to standardize the features that JavaScript and its
> forks [most notably JScript] have in common at the time of its writing).
>
> ISO/IEC 16262 is _not_ "formerly known as ECMAScript" either. The title of
> that international standard is (like the original) "ECMAScript Language
> Specification, Edition 3". Neither ISO/IEC 16262 nor ECMAScript was
> developed (solely) by Netscape Communications.
>
> JavaScript, on the other hand, *was* developed (solely) by Netscape
> Communications, until *excluding* JavaScript 1.5, when the code of Netscape
> Navigator along with Client-side JavaScript 1.3 became Open Source Software
> in the Mozilla project organized through the Mozilla Organization
> (Mozilla.org).

Yes, that's much better! Now someone else can actually learn something
from the reply, which, in the end, might even reduce the amount of
nonsense.

/L
--
Lasse Reichstein Holst Nielsen
'Javascript frameworks is a disruptive technology'

From: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn on 27 Nov 2009 17:49
Lasse Reichstein Nielsen wrote:

> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars(a)web.de> writes:
>> Lasse Reichstein Nielsen wrote:
>>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars(a)web.de> writes:
>>>> Jorge wrote:
>>>>> Acrobat JavaScript is a language based on the core of JavaScript
>>>>> version 1.5 of ISO-16262, formerly known as ECMAScript, an object-
>>>>> oriented scripting language developed by Netscape Communications.
>>>>
>>>> Utter nonsense.
>>>
>>> When people say more than one thing, it's a good idea to say which
>>> part you think is nonsense. And why.
>>
>> [explanation]
>
> Yes, that's much better! Now someone else can actually learn something
> from the reply, which, in the end, might even reduce the amount of
> nonsense.

However, when I am posting, I write for smart people. People whom I expect
to ask smart questions about the why if they are interested in my (or
anybody else's) reasons. In a way, you did, and I happened to have the time
tonight to be more verbose.

I do not see the purpose of this newsgroup and my posting here to provide
explanations in advance as to why posted nonsense is nonsense. And I do not
intend to back off from that position. YMMV.


PointedEars
--
Anyone who slaps a 'this page is best viewed with Browser X' label on
a Web page appears to be yearning for the bad old days, before the Web,
when you had very little chance of reading a document written on another
computer, another word processor, or another network. -- Tim Berners-Lee
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2
Prev: javascript standard libraries
Next: javascript (ecmascript) libraries