Discuss
  • Process of proposing targeted deconstruction

Process of proposing targeted deconstruction

# John Gardner (8 years ago)

I'd like to propose a simple yet potent syntax addition esdiscuss.org/topic/constructing-objects-from-named-identifiers

for /ECMAScript\d+/. What's the most direct approach to get this officially considered? I've seen differing procedures mentioned in places and I'm unsure.

BTW, am I the only one getting confused by the year-based naming convention? I skip over intermediate letters when reading and only absorb the last digit, which makes me mistake ES2017 as ES7, which is actually ES2016, which I get mixed up with ES6, which is ES2015.

# Mark S. Miller (8 years ago)

ES2015 was the last version for which the short for ("ES6") was also in common use. After that, there is only ES2016 etc. There is no such thing as ES7.

# John Gardner (8 years ago)

> There is no such thing as ES7.

You say that as though you can control how people index language versions in their minds...

# Leo Balter (8 years ago)

I haven't seen anyone referring to ES2017 as ES8, so I imagine we won't have this problem anymore in a couple years. In anyway, this is an addition that won't happen to ES2016, it's too late for that.

# Caitlin Potter (8 years ago)

Oh sure you have,

chromium.googlesource.com/v8/v8/+/master/test/mjsunit/es8, chromium.googlesource.com/v8/v8/+/master/test/mjsunit/es8 for instance :p

# kdex (8 years ago)

@caitlin Good find, but this directory name was presumably only given to match the naming scheme of [1] and [2]. Somebody should probably do the work and rename them all.

@leo: The Chrome Platform Status page [3] also mentions "ES8".

[1] chromium.googlesource.com/v8/v8/+/master/test/mjsunit/es6 [2] chromium.googlesource.com/v8/v8/+/master/test/mjsunit/es7 [3] www.chromestatus.com/features/5644533144485888

# Andreas Rossberg (8 years ago)

Can't wait til we've reached ES15 in 2024!

# John Gardner (8 years ago)

"In anyway, this is an addition that won't happen to ES2016, it's too late for that."

I'm not fussed over when it gets considered for addition. Unless there's a period of freeze where proposals are ignored if they're submitted too close to the date of a finalised version of ECMAScript. On 1 Jun 2016 11:59 pm, "Leo Balter" <leonardo.balter at gmail.com> wrote:

I haven't seen anyone referring to ES2017 as ES8, so I imagine we won't have this problem anymore in a couple years. In anyway, this is an addition that won't happen to ES2016, it's too late for that.

# Caitlin Potter (8 years ago)

Honestly, I don’t think so — Colloquially, it’s just easier to deal with small indexes vs dates/years. They’re shorter, they don’t change as often (in theory). It’s a hard habit to break for most people.

# John Gardner (8 years ago)

Caitlin's got it. Furthermore, with the constant exposure of semver, it's a challenge to condition oneself to think in years instead of version numbers for one technology but not another.

Which is to say nothing of how well "ECMAScript Twenty Sixteen" rolls off the tongue in speech.

(I really regret adding the second half of my original e-mail, now... even if it was supposed to be moderately light-hearted).

"I haven't been this confused by so many skipped releases since the Xbox 360"

Bikeshed

# kdex (8 years ago)

I could swear that I've read that one intent was to release an updated ES standard yearly, so in theory, even the smaller indexes should change just as often as the years on a calendar. :p The majority should already have broken the habit calling it "harmony", so it's not like we haven't been there before.

I think it's just a matter of time for people to realize that an offset of year – 2009 has the potential to be confusing in the long run. (Maybe worth mentioning: If mankind still exists in the year 4024, the names will clash :p)

# John Gardner (8 years ago)

Wrong comparison. "Harmony" was more or less an umbrella term for any version of ECMAScript released after the non-existent version 4, which I'm sure remains a subject of cryptozoology in some circles.

*I think it's just a matter of time for people to realise that an offset of

year – 2009 has the potential to be confusing in the long run.*

Uhm. I think your manner of recollecting releases is very different to mine...

If mankind still exists in the year 4024, the names will clash

In 4024, there'll only be one programming language, which is JavaScript. Everything else, including C, will be redundant. The HTML specification will have been renamed "Bootstrap", and people who write CSS will face the same opprobrium reserved for people who only write in Assembly. Grunt and Gulp will have finally been merged into Grulpt, and Node will have blossomed into an operating system.

The future is bleak and I'll be glad to be dead.

# Caitlin Potter (8 years ago)

Anyways, instead of arguing about the colloquial vs long/tedious naming conventions, it might be be better not to derail the thread about a language feature proposal.

# John Gardner (8 years ago)

It is? I was counting how many JavaScript versions it'd take before Domino Cola blog.domenic.me shot this thread down.

SERIOUSLY THOUGH: If somebody could give me a definitive answer on where and how to go about getting a language feature proposed and considered, that'd be copacetic as hell.

# Renki Ivanko (8 years ago)

It's wishful thinking to say that ES7 isn't in common use; there's not much reason for it to be less common than ES6. ES2016 still has the same problems as ES2015: 6 characters means it barely counts as an abbreviation; bigger numbers are not good for humans; the last digit being off by one from the edition number is naturally confusing, and there isn't even a particularly good reason for the new name to exist, because it just communicates the release schedule. The previously established nomenclature also isn't going away because ES3 and ES5 are still officially called that. ES2016 will keep being referred to as "ES2016 (ES7)", because that's the easiest way to explain how it fits into the release history, and it'll stay reminder of the hubris of a technical committee dabbling in marketing.

# Benjamin Gruenbaum (8 years ago)

First of all - when you engage the list in that manner do not expect super constructive responses. Be concise and direct about what you want to get at and you'll get a response.

Disrespect members - and people will not be so willing to engage.

As for language feature proposal - the process is outlined in tc39/ecma262 which explains the process, how proposals are written and how they progress. Also note the "Contributing to ECMAScript" page.