Concern over proposed EMACScript

Discussion in 'Javascript' started by christos.jonathan.hayward@gmail.com, Jul 18, 2008.

  1. Guest

    Kindly Sir or Madam;

    I am writing to express my grave concern over the new proposal for
    EMACScript to replace current ECMA scripting (i.e. JavaScript) as the
    new standard for web scripting.

    You say in your proposal that the new and improved EMACScript should
    'finally realize the dream of allowing EVERY modern graphical web
    browser--Firefox, Internet Explorer, Opera--to compete with Mozilla
    Seamonkey on its own terms.' I fear that this is true, but this is not
    a dream at all. It is a nightmare. What hinders Internet Explorer, for
    instance, is not that as a pure 'web browser,' it cannot compete with
    a 'web browser and webpage editor and POP/IMAP e-mail client and IM
    client and newsreader and calendar and PIM tool and OS/platform and
    religion and kitchen sink and fully customizable kitchen sink
    factory.' The reason Firefox rather quickly displaced the original
    Mozilla all-in-one as the most popular open source graphical browser
    is that Firefox carries the liabilities of a web browser alone, rather
    than the bloat and liabilities of an all-in-one package, and there are
    considerable advantage to 'only' being a web browser, and CONTINUING
    to only do something that works well. This really constitutes A Very
    Good Thing.

    Admittedly, as you say, 'browser add-ons can add almost any extension
    to EMACScript that a computer can run, implemented in a language
    consisting solely of parentheses.' What you say may be true, but this
    also is not a dream but a nightmare: most of the problems in existing
    JavaScript as ECMA script is now implemented are less a matter of how
    JavaScript HAS NOT been extended than how it HAS.

    Furthermore, you say that the new EMACScript is easier to learn than
    the alternative, and it seems odd for people who know the alternative
    to switch because EMACScript is, after all, easier to learn. I won't
    contest that EMACScript could be easier to learn if you're beginning,
    but if you already know how to use the current alternative, then the
    English translation of 'easier' is 'expect roadbumps: your practical
    knowledge of how to work smoothly will no longer be anything
    approaching an easy way to work smoothly,' or to simply cut to the
    chase, 'your knowledge will seem almost useless now.' Maybe it IS
    easier for newcomers not to have to be burdened with some features of
    the alternative, like modal state--but you never seem to acknowledge
    that dated modal state allows single-keystroke navigation with the
    fingers of one hand never leaving home row, and that this is a
    genuinely nice feature. People who switch may find surprises that add
    up to a long-standing pain in the wrist.

    And finally, kindly Sir or Madam, please--I'm only a poor arachnid,
    and I am part of the picture of creatures you're trying to serve. As a
    tarantula, I simply haven't got enough limbs to press all the modifier
    keys needed to do anything useful.

    Cordially yours,
    Eight Legs And Constantly Swapping


    --
    -- Jonathan Hayward,

    ** To see an award-winning website with stories, essays, artwork,
    ** games, and a four-dimensional maze, why not visit my home page?
    ** All of this is waiting for you at http://JonathansCorner.com

    ++ Would you like to curl up with one of my hardcover books?
    ++ You can now get my books from http://CJSHayward.com
     
    , Jul 18, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Aaron Gray Guest

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Kindly Sir or Madam;
    >
    > I am writing to express my grave concern over the new proposal for
    > EMACScript to replace current ECMA scripting (i.e. JavaScript) as the
    > new standard for web scripting.


    One word 'weird' !

    Aaron
     
    Aaron Gray, Jul 18, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Aaron Gray wrote:
    > <> wrote:
    >> Kindly Sir or Madam;
    >>
    >> I am writing to express my grave concern over the new proposal for
    >> EMACScript to replace current ECMA scripting (i.e. JavaScript) as the
    >> new standard for web scripting.

    >
    > One word 'weird' !


    However, "his" <http://cjshayward.com/etc/maze/> is an interesting
    diversion, indeed. Too bad it is written in Java and not this
    fascinating EMACScript he is talking about.


    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$1$>
     
    Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn, Jul 18, 2008
    #3
  4. Joe Pfeiffer <> writes:

    > While I don't normally respond to this sort of political (or other)
    > spam, I've got to say that the typo in the subject leads to all sort
    > of fascinating possibilities... just imagine Emacs Lisp as the
    > standard web scripting language...


    IIRC the original intent of netscape was to create some kind of
    "scheme for the web". Shame they didn't go with some scheme/OO hybrid,
    really.

    --
    Joost Diepenmaat | blog: http://joost.zeekat.nl/ | work: http://zeekat.nl/
     
    Joost Diepenmaat, Jul 18, 2008
    #4
  5. Joost Diepenmaat wrote:
    > Joe Pfeiffer <> writes:
    >> While I don't normally respond to this sort of political (or other)
    >> spam, I've got to say that the typo in the subject leads to all sort
    >> of fascinating possibilities... just imagine Emacs Lisp as the
    >> standard web scripting language...

    >
    > IIRC the original intent of netscape was to create some kind of
    > "scheme for the web". Shame they didn't go with some scheme/OO hybrid,
    > really.


    Didn't they?

    <http://www.crockford.com/javascript/little.html>


    PointedEars
    --
    realism: HTML 4.01 Strict
    evangelism: XHTML 1.0 Strict
    madness: XHTML 1.1 as application/xhtml+xml
    -- Bjoern Hoehrmann
     
    Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn, Jul 18, 2008
    #5
  6. Tim Streater Guest

    In article <>,
    Joe Pfeiffer <> wrote:

    > After re-reading the original post: <latella>never mind</latella>
    >
    > (the *really* good parodies are the ones you miss on the first
    > read... thanks to Ben for gently pointing this one out to me)


    That should be <nutella> and you don't need any closing tag, for that,
    ever.
     
    Tim Streater, Jul 18, 2008
    #6
  7. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <> writes:

    > Joost Diepenmaat wrote:
    >> Joe Pfeiffer <> writes:
    >>> While I don't normally respond to this sort of political (or other)
    >>> spam, I've got to say that the typo in the subject leads to all sort
    >>> of fascinating possibilities... just imagine Emacs Lisp as the
    >>> standard web scripting language...

    >>
    >> IIRC the original intent of netscape was to create some kind of
    >> "scheme for the web". Shame they didn't go with some scheme/OO hybrid,
    >> really.

    >
    > Didn't they?
    >
    > <http://www.crockford.com/javascript/little.html>


    Good article. But I meant, I would have preferred something that
    actually looked and acted like scheme. And macros would have been
    nice, too.

    Some of the parts in the ES standard that look ugly and strange are
    actually directly imported from scheme, where they make a lot more
    sense. Like function scoping (including scheme's (let) macro).

    --
    Joost Diepenmaat | blog: http://joost.zeekat.nl/ | work: http://zeekat.nl/
     
    Joost Diepenmaat, Jul 21, 2008
    #7
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Kenneth Myhra
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    426
    Kenneth Myhra
    Feb 16, 2004
  2. David Wilding
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    420
    Whitecrest
    Apr 3, 2004
  3. Neil Zanella
    Replies:
    49
    Views:
    1,047
    Flash Gordon
    Feb 17, 2004
  4. puzzlecracker
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    385
    Thomas Hawtin
    Sep 21, 2006
  5. Replies:
    1
    Views:
    394
Loading...

Share This Page