JavaScript and JScript....?

Discussion in 'Javascript' started by the DtTvB, May 30, 2006.

  1. the DtTvB

    the DtTvB Guest

    I heard it is not the same.
    The lastest version of JavaScript is 1.6 while lastest version of
    JScript is 8.0
    I also heard a little bit about ECMAScript, but I still don't know
    what's the difference of them.
    So, what's exactly the difference of it?
     
    the DtTvB, May 30, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. the DtTvB

    Randy Webb Guest

    the DtTvB said the following on 5/29/2006 7:27 PM:
    > I heard it is not the same.


    What is not the same?

    > The lastest version of JavaScript is 1.6 while lastest version of
    > JScript is 8.0


    JScript is at 8.0 now? I must catch up.....

    > I also heard a little bit about ECMAScript, but I still don't know
    > what's the difference of them.
    > So, what's exactly the difference of it?


    The name mostly. And who maintains the documentation.

    Javascript - Netscapes rendition adopted by other browsers.
    JScript - IE's rendition.
    ECMAScript - an attempt to try to standardize the language by a group
    that has nothing to do with anything to do with the language other than
    trying to attempt to standardize it so there is a standard for it.

    Javascript is also a generic term used to refer to client side scripting.

    --
    Randy
    comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq & newsgroup weekly
    Javascript Best Practices - http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/
     
    Randy Webb, May 30, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. the DtTvB wrote:

    > [...] lastest version of JScript is 8.0


    Really? I thought it is 7.0 (JScript.NET, only server-side AFAIK). Could
    you tell about the JScript execution environment you are using (Server or
    User-Agent header would probably suffice)?

    > I also heard a little bit about ECMAScript, but I still don't know
    > what's the difference of them.
    > So, what's exactly the difference of it?


    <URL:http://jibbering.com/faq/#FAQ2_6>
    <URL:http://pointedears.de/es-matrix>


    PointedEars
    --
    http://members.ud.com/download/gold/
    http://folding.stanford.edu/
    http://alien.de/seti/
    http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/
     
    Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn, May 30, 2006
    #3
  4. the DtTvB

    the DtTvB Guest

    > Really? I thought it is 7.0 (JScript.NET, only server-side AFAIK). Could
    > you tell about the JScript execution environment you are using (Server or
    > User-Agent header would probably suffice)?


    I don't use JScript, that's why I asked.
     
    the DtTvB, May 30, 2006
    #4
  5. the DtTvB

    Randy Webb Guest

    the DtTvB said the following on 5/30/2006 6:02 AM:
    >> Really? I thought it is 7.0 (JScript.NET, only server-side AFAIK). Could
    >> you tell about the JScript execution environment you are using (Server or
    >> User-Agent header would probably suffice)?

    >
    > I don't use JScript, that's why I asked.
    >


    JScript on the client is at 6.0, on the server is 7.0.

    Further, ECMAScript is a theory about how things should be rather than a
    reflection of how things really are.

    --
    Randy
    comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq & newsgroup weekly
    Javascript Best Practices - http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/
     
    Randy Webb, May 30, 2006
    #5
  6. In article <>, Randy Webb
    <> writes

    <snip>
    >Further, ECMAScript is a theory about how things should be rather than
    >a reflection of how things really are.


    Why do you say this? It isn't true.

    Do you say that the ECMA standard for C# is also "a theory about how
    things should be rather than a reflection of how things really are"?

    John
    --
    John Harris
     
    John G Harris, May 30, 2006
    #6
  7. the DtTvB

    Randy Webb Guest

    John G Harris said the following on 5/30/2006 3:46 PM:
    > In article <>, Randy Webb
    > <> writes
    >
    > <snip>
    >> Further, ECMAScript is a theory about how things should be rather than
    >> a reflection of how things really are.

    >
    > Why do you say this?


    Because it is.

    > It isn't true.


    It isn't? Can you tell me where to find the specification for innerHTML
    in the ECMA documentation?

    If you can, then my statement is false.
    If you can't, then my statement is true.

    ..innerHTML is very very widely supported yet you won't find it in the
    ECMAScript documentation. That alone prevents ECMAScript from being a
    reflection of reality and more a theory of how it should be.


    > Do you say that the ECMA standard for C# is also "a theory about how
    > things should be rather than a reflection of how things really are"?


    I said nothing about ECMA's standard for C# or any other language other
    than ECMAScript.

    --
    Randy
    comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq & newsgroup weekly
    Javascript Best Practices - http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/
     
    Randy Webb, May 30, 2006
    #7
  8. Randy Webb wrote:

    > John G Harris said the following on 5/30/2006 3:46 PM:
    >> [...] Randy Webb [...] writes
    >> <snip>
    >>> Further, ECMAScript is a theory about how things should be rather than
    >>> a reflection of how things really are.

    >>
    >> Why do you say this?

    >
    > Because it is.
    >
    >> It isn't true.

    >
    > It isn't? Can you tell me where to find the specification for innerHTML
    > in the ECMA documentation?
    >
    > If you can, then my statement is false.
    > If you can't, then my statement is true.


    No, your logic is flawed.

    > .innerHTML is very very widely supported yet you won't find it in the
    > ECMAScript documentation. That alone prevents ECMAScript from being a
    > reflection of reality and more a theory of how it should be.


    ISTM you have yet to understand the basic difference between native
    objects and host objects, among many other basic things about Web
    development.

    You will find no native object (all of them are defined in ECMAScript) to
    have a built-in `innerHTML' property; element objects (that can have this
    property built-in, depending on the DOM) are host objects, not native
    objects. In fact, element objects are provided by the Document Object
    Model of the host environment (here: HTML UA), and as such may have other
    properties that are not defined in any standard. (Where the corresponding
    Web standard here is not ECMA-262, but the W3C DOM, particularly W3C DOM
    Level 2 HTML.)

    On the other hand, in ECMAScript implementations you will find the Global
    Object to have host-defined properties, such as `window'. Those are of
    course not defined in the ECMAScript Specification explicitly. However,
    ECMAScript allows the Global Object explicitly to have such properties.
    Furthermore, known implementation-specific deviations from the
    Specification are backed up by the Specification's own Conformance section.

    Probably someone has explained all of this (to you) here before.


    PointedEars
    --
    When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then
    whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.
    -- Sherlock Holmes in Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's
    "The Blanched Soldier"
     
    Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn, May 31, 2006
    #8
  9. Randy Webb <> writes:

    > John G Harris said the following on 5/30/2006 3:46 PM:
    >> In article <>, Randy
    >> Webb <> writes
    >> <snip>
    >>> Further, ECMAScript is a theory about how things should be rather
    >>> than a reflection of how things really are.

    ....
    >> It isn't true.

    >
    > It isn't? Can you tell me where to find the specification for
    > innerHTML in the ECMA documentation?


    Nowhere. Like there is no specification for the path of the Earth
    around the sun or the notes of a symphony by Mozart. Neither is
    relevant to the specification of ECMAScript, but all exist
    as "things really are".

    No specification specifies everything. What matters is how they
    match how things really are *within their scope*

    > If you can, then my statement is false.
    > If you can't, then my statement is true.


    Ah, the Chewbacca defense :)


    > .innerHTML is very very widely supported yet you won't find it in the
    > ECMAScript documentation.


    Why would you even look there, and not in the much more likely W3C
    DOM Specification?

    > That alone prevents ECMAScript from being a reflection of reality
    > and more a theory of how it should be.


    That argument would prevent any specification from being a reflection
    of reality.

    >> Do you say that the ECMA standard for C# is also "a theory about how
    >> things should be rather than a reflection of how things really are"?

    >
    > I said nothing about ECMA's standard for C# or any other language
    > other than ECMAScript.


    But the C# standard doesn't say anything about Java either!
    /L
    --
    Lasse Reichstein Nielsen -
    DHTML Death Colors: <URL:http://www.infimum.dk/HTML/rasterTriangleDOM.html>
    'Faith without judgement merely degrades the spirit divine.'
     
    Lasse Reichstein Nielsen, May 31, 2006
    #9
  10. In article <>, Randy Webb
    <> writes
    >John G Harris said the following on 5/30/2006 3:46 PM:
    >> In article <>, Randy Webb
    >><> writes
    >> <snip>
    >>> Further, ECMAScript is a theory about how things should be rather
    >>>than a reflection of how things really are.

    >> Why do you say this?

    >
    >Because it is.
    >
    >> It isn't true.

    >
    >It isn't? Can you tell me where to find the specification for innerHTML
    >in the ECMA documentation?


    Gigadollar corporations want to be able to use javascript in
    applications that are nothing to do with HTML. The Windows Scripting
    Host is an obvious example. As a result the specifications of innerHTML
    and file access objects have been split off into other documents.

    This follows the well known software engineering principle of separation
    of concerns, a lot like good OO design in fact.

    >If you can, then my statement is false.
    >If you can't, then my statement is true.


    Your statement is neither. Putting innerHTML in a separate document is
    not a theory - it's very practical - but it is a reflection of reality -
    it doesn't exist in some javascript environments.

    >.innerHTML is very very widely supported yet you won't find it in the
    >ECMAScript documentation. That alone prevents ECMAScript from being a
    >reflection of reality and more a theory of how it should be.

    <snip>

    WSH is also widely supported; in every Win XP for a start.

    John
    --
    John Harris
     
    John G Harris, May 31, 2006
    #10
  11. the DtTvB

    Warren Sarle Guest

    In article <>,
    "the DtTvB" <> writes:
    > I heard it is not the same.


    Every variety of Javascript has its own bugs and peculiarities.
    For example, in JScript, variables created by a var statement
    in global scope are not enumerable properties of the window object.
    This can be a nuisance if you are trying to use an object browser
    in Internet Explorer. Try the following in IE, Netscape, Opera, etc.
    and you'll see a lot of differences:

    <html>
    <body>
    <p>Hello, world</p>
    <script>
    var apple=123;
    document.write('<p>apple='+apple+'</p>\n');
    document.write('<p>window.apple='+window.apple+'</p>\n');
    var banana='yellow';
    var msg=[];
    for (var property in window) {
    try {
    msg.push(property+'='+String(window[property]));
    }
    catch(e) {
    msg.push(property+' - exception: '+String(e));
    }
    }
    document.write('<p>window properties:<ul>\n<li>\n'+
    msg.join('</li>\n<li>')+
    '</li>\n</ul></p>');
    </script>
    </body>
    </html>

    If you change "var apple=123;" to "window.apple=123;", then "apple"
    will show up as a property of window on IE.


    --

    Warren S. Sarle SAS Institute Inc. The opinions expressed here
    SAS Campus Drive are mine and not necessarily
    (919) 677-8000 Cary, NC 27513, USA those of SAS Institute.
     
    Warren Sarle, May 31, 2006
    #11
    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. Jon Maz
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    1,296
    Jon Maz
    Sep 9, 2004
  2. Maxwell2006
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    2,426
    Steven Cheng[MSFT]
    Mar 7, 2006
  3. John Bentley
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    377
    Jim Ley
    Feb 5, 2004
  4. lightsoff

    JSCRIPT and JavaScript - newbie Q

    lightsoff, Dec 13, 2005, in forum: Javascript
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    174
    Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
    Dec 18, 2005
  5. VK
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    369
    Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
    Jan 12, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page