Concern over proposed EMACScript

  • Thread starter christos.jonathan.hayward
  • Start date
C

christos.jonathan.hayward

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, (e-mail address removed)

** 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
 
A

Aaron Gray

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
 
J

Joost Diepenmaat

Joe Pfeiffer said:
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.
 
T

Tim Streater

Joe Pfeiffer said:
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.
 
J

Joost Diepenmaat

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn said:

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).
 

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
473,744
Messages
2,569,484
Members
44,903
Latest member
orderPeak8CBDGummies

Latest Threads

Top