[ small request - Javascript for javaing]
JavaScript (an implementation of EcmaScript) has different semantics than Java, it is not a subset and so it would break all sorts of backwards compatibility (and lose some functionality) to act as if it is a subset of Java.
Basically, the languages are not directly related so it is not possible, and mostly comes up from a naming confusion.
There are also a lot of coders working in JavaScript (see githut.info), and JavaScript can also be used as a backend (see node.js). So why shouldn't Java become a subset of JavaScript?
The ES design makes it very clear to not "break the web". That means that any code working today, should also work tomorrow. As such, removing prototypes (which are clearly more flexible than Java classes) or removing the generic number class (instead of int, float, double, ...) or removing other things Java doesn't have or Java does differently, isn't an option at all.
, Sander
2016-01-01 16:27 GMT+01:00 Bradley Meck <bradley.meck at gmail.com>:
This discussion does not belong on this list. Please take it elsewhere.
it is more python than more java today:) and less javascript.
2016-01-01 23:52 GMT+08:00 Mark S. Miller <erights at google.com>:
On Fri, Jan 1, 2016 at 3:51 PM, Norbert Korodi <norbert.korodi at gmail.com>
wrote:
As I reread my letter I have to admit that I might sound arrogant / offensive (and I am sorry for that , at least I am honest ) but I am really tired of reading about "new"-ish es features which are only new to this platform.
While strictly not new features, object literals, anonymous functions and proper closure are fairly important features of Javascript. To my knowledge Java still doesn't have those... Not sure which language has some catching up to do there.
On Fri, Jan 1, 2016 at 4:56 PM, 李白|字一日 <calidion at gmail.com> wrote:
it is more python than more java today:) and less javascript.
2016-01-01 23:52 GMT+08:00 Mark S. Miller <erights at google.com>:
This discussion does not belong on this list. Please take it elsewhere..
It does, but You will not accept the fact that it is only significant
because of its roots... not because of its usefulness.
On Fri, Jan 1, 2016 at 10:42 AM, Sander Deryckere <sanderd17 at gmail.com> wrote:
There are also a lot of coders working in JavaScript (see githut.info), and JavaScript can also be used as a backend (see node.js). So why shouldn't Java become a subset of JavaScript?
ES syntax is coming closer to Java , not the other way. Node is a great,
I wish I could use the same lang everywhere (like java / natural lang for backend and frontend), just not js.
The ES design makes it very clear to not "break the web". That means that any code working today, should also work tomorrow. As such, removing prototypes (which are clearly more flexible than Java classes) or removing the generic number class (instead of
I can do anything with Java or python as well, restrictions (less
flexibility) are for developers to help them build better sw.
int, float, double, ...) or removing other things Java doesn't have or Java
does differently, isn't an option at all.
It would not be the first time in history to break backward compatibility.
, Sander
2016-01-01 16:27 GMT+01:00 Bradley Meck <bradley.meck at gmail.com>:
JavaScript (an implementation of EcmaScript) has different semantics than Java, it is not a subset and so it would break all sorts of backwards compatibility (and lose some functionality) to act as if it is a subset of Java.
I am not sure, transpilers are great, but to be honest: I would not mind
breaking it. You can't lose functionality.
Basically, the languages are not directly related so it is not possible, and mostly comes up from a naming confusion.
Yes, they are different animals, but we produce them... I mean You. :)
I know the marketing fairy tale about jscript and java and that is why I used the Java word but you can exchange it to anything else e.g. C# ,
Okay I touched some nerve here, so I won't be sending more emails about this topic, I just wanted You guys to know that nowadays js / es is not really in a good shape. We use it because we have to, not because we like it , so deep down we wish for a more standard language.
Br, Norbert
Actually if you look up the history of JS it is only called "Java"Script because Java was popular, it originally was called LiveScript but due to political pressures it was named JavaScript.
The underpinning semantics of the language are vastly different, with the ideas of first class functions, and mutable runtime designed classes (via prototypes).
Those in minds, please read the history of EcmaScript, www.youtube.com/watch?v=fg4e-2lBw5E has some details, but there is much more around the internet.
I suggest the following:
- Can you point to backwards compatibility breakages?
We wish to avoid that.
- Can you point to which features you want in the language?
Once again, the underlying semantics of www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-262.htm (see section #4) differ vastly (and never refers to being a subset or compatible with) Java.
Maybe we should rename the colloquial name of the language, to give clear signal to this kind of Javaist that Java should not have been there at first place and JS is something else. To retain .js extension it should be some J-word, like JumboScript, JiffyScript, JiveScript or something like that.
On Fri, Jan 1, 2016 at 3:47 PM, Herby Vojčík <herby at mailbox.sk> wrote:
Maybe we should rename the colloquial name of the language, to give clear signal to this kind of Javaist that Java should not have been there at first place and JS is something else. To retain .js extension it should be some J-word, like JumboScript, JiffyScript, JiveScript or something like that.
The "real" name of JavaScript is ECMAScript, which is in the name of the list you are posting to.
JavaScript is a twenty years old trademark that has spread through the whole web and became the most popular programming language name in the open source world. It does not make any sense to change it now. Even if it did make sense, the ECMAScript discussion list is not a place to discuss trademarks and how the language is informally called—people may want to call it WafflePickle, but that is not something you can standardize through the ECMA process.
Regarding Norbert Korodi sentence:
"I just wanted You guys to know that nowadays js / es is not really in a good shape. We use it because we have to, not because we like it , so deep down we wish for a more standard language."
Well... this topic could rise a flame war about programming languages, and maybe, it should be closed here. I'm not sure who are the "we" in the above sentence. But I'm one of the happy members of "we" in the sentence:
We are using JavaScript, with pleasure, as a powerful and flexible language
After coding with IBM mainframe assembly language, BCPL, Algol/W, RPG II, Fortran IV, COBOL in various flavors, PL/I, Prolog, Lisp, Ruby, Python, Forth, APL, Perl, PHP, classic ASP, Quick Basic, Turbo Pascal, DBase II, Clipper, Access, Visual Basic classic, Java, C#/VB/CLR, Clojure, Erlang, Elixir, I could declare JavaScript is one of the most powerful language I know, and a "classical" one in syntax and semantic.
Sure, there is no silver bullet... But for many contexts, I prefer JavaScript, as is, it is in a really good shape.
Angel "Java" Lopez @ajlopez
Please don't feed the troll.
Norbert: If you don't want to use JS, don't use it. If reading about bothers you, stop reading about it. Meanwhile, stop polluting the ML.
Bob
Thanks, Bob. Always good advice.
Turns out I'm a list admin still. I will set mod bits if necessary. This has been necessary only a few times over the past ten years. Let's leave this thread to die, please.
Happy New Year!
We use it because we have to, not because we like it , so deep down we
wish for a more standard language.
Nope, I use it because I love it. The language is way better than Java in my opinion (and I have really good experience with both, backend and frontend).
Also, telling Python developers to change Python to be like Ruby (or vice versa) is the same as what was suggested here, and the answer is: no, no, and no! Just because one person doesn't like a language isn't good enough reason to make such a preposterous change.
The mere fact that there are so many people coding in JavaScript and not complaining to completely modify it as suggested shows that the suggestion is one based on a dislike of the language. That's fine, just don't use the language.
If you're forced to use a language that you don't like, that's a separate issue you should fix. I'm not forced to use languages I don't like because I don't let myself be in such a situation.
Hello Guys!
I have always been a backend developer(Java, python, c++,c) and for a long time I haven't had the privilige to play with native javascript... so You can imagine when I was forced to code in javascript. After a couple of hours I had a really simple thought coming up from my spine: es6 is great and es7 will be great... but could you pls make it more like Java? I mean, it's great that es6 and 7 are getting closer and closer to normal languages then why not be simply Java? I and my team used GWT (when we were forced to code frontend) and other tools to avoid scripting but this time(standardization is somewhere close to the right track) You can actually make a difference and create a standard language that could be used everywhere. Not because there are already a lot of coders working in Java (and other high-level programming languages), just because it is a really pain in the a$$ to learn the not so important differences what es has compared to other languages... and they give nothing in return.
Okay, I know it is a scripting language so it can not be as verbose as Java... then just simply take stuff away from Java, and please don't add anything else for sugaring syntax.Please add syntax only for adding new features.
As I reread my letter I have to admit that I might sound arrogant / offensive (and I am sorry for that , at least I am honest ) but I am really tired of reading about "new"-ish es features which are only new to this platform.
Br,