"i = i|0"

[Christoph Michael Becker]

The LISP 1.5 programmer's manual (1962) writes the language
thus: »LISP«. (I am not sure whether you refer to that
language LISP 1.5, or whether »Lisp 1.5« is something else.)

Indeed, I wanted to refer to LISP 1.5. Thanks for pointing out my mistake.

BTW, JavaScript is the scripting language of

- Mozilla (Netscape) (trademark used by permission of
Oracle (Sun)), and

- Java SE 8 (trademark used by Oracle itself).

I am not aware of any other party that has the permission
of Oracle to use »JavaScript« for a programming language.

As Thomas Lahn has already pointed out in this thread[1]:

| Of the ECMAScript implementations that I would consider “major”, there
| are Netscape/Mozilla JavaScript, Google V8 JavaScript and KDE
| JavaScript that contain the “JavaScript” name standalone. The original
| JavaScript, of course, is Netscape JavaScript, with Mozilla JavaScript
| as its open-source free-software successor (at least those parts that
| are licensed under MPL 2.0 or later). “Internet Explorer JavaScript”
| is just a Micro$~1 marketing scam; its real name is Microsoft JScript
| 9+ (codename “Chakra”), supported by MSHTML 9+.

I do not know if these parties have permission from Oracle to use the
name "JavaScript" for their implementations, but obviously they use it.

[1] <
[xpost & fup2 comp.lang.javascript]

 

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

ITYM "in their rush to take Microsoft's money in return for helping to
extract them from their Java trademark infringement suit ..."
Nonsense.

Does ECMA do _anything_ useful, or are they just another puppet of Intel
and/or Microsoft? I'd never heard of them prior to the ECMAScript
nonsense, and I've never heard of them since.

If you would really be interested in what Ecma International (*that* is the
*real* name of the organization) did and does, you would visit their Web
site and find out. Of course, it is easier for you to troll Usenet. FOAD.

 

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Very easy. A dynamic programming language is characterized by late binding
features. For instance, type is principally a run-time property of
values/objects, rather than of pieces of program source code. Functions
and types may defined and redefined while the program is running. These
capabilities would be a bare minimum. Dynamic languages also usually
exhibit introspection: various entities that describe the program, and
which disappear after compile time in static languages tend to be
available in a useful run-time representation in dynamic languages. For
instance "class" or "variable name" might be strictly compile-time
concepts in a static language, but in a dynamic language they might be
run-time values of some sort.

That is an interesting definition that you have just made up. And it does
not fully apply to JavaScript (or other ECMAScript implementations) either.

 

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

BTW, JavaScript is the scripting language of

- Mozilla (Netscape) (trademark used by permission of
Oracle (Sun)), and

Correct, in a way.

- Java SE 8

How did you get that idea?

(trademark used by Oracle itself).

Oracle Corp. *owns* the “JavaScript†trademark because they took over Sun
Microsystems, Inc. which previously owned the “JavaScript†trademark because
they previously already owned the “Java†trademark, and Sun owning the
“JavaScript†trademark was one of the results of negotiations leading to a
mutual agreement between Netscape Communications Corp. and Sun Microsystems,
Inc. in December 1995 (CE).

I am not aware of any other party that has the permission
of Oracle to use »JavaScript« for a programming language.

Me neither. But they do, and Oracle does not seem to mind; the same as Sun
did not seem to mind when KDE e.V. (“KDE JavaScript (KJS)â€, 2000), Apple
Inc. (“JavaScriptCoreâ€, based on KJS; 2003), the WebKit Open Source Project
(ditto, 2005), Google Inc. (“V8 JavaScriptâ€, 2008), and even Microsoft Corp.
(“Internet Explorer JavaScriptâ€, 2011) started using it¹.

____________
¹ Opera has always been ambiguous; they have used both the “ECMAScriptâ€
and the “JavaScript†name to refer to their implementation, which is
why I am using the term “Opera ECMAScriptâ€. They have adopted V8
last year, so what applies to Google now also applies to them.

 

[Martin Shobe]

That is an interesting definition that you have just made up. And it does
not fully apply to JavaScript (or other ECMAScript implementations) either.

No it's not a definition that he just made up. See

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_programming_language
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4913105/what-qualifies-a-programming-language-as-dynamic
http://wiki.tcl.tk/13325

Martin Shobe

 

[John Harris]

On 06/12/2014 11:13 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:



I did indeed search the Web.

<snip>

I'm afraid James has dropped into an argument that has been going on
for several years. The question is how to refer to a variety of
implementations, some of them trade-marked, in a variety of
environments : browsers, web servers, etc.

Some of us want a one-word generic name and think that lower case
'javascript' is as good as any. Thomas rejects that idea absolutely,
often with accompanying abuse.

John

 

[Tim Streater]

<snip>

I'm afraid James has dropped into an argument that has been going on
for several years. The question is how to refer to a variety of
implementations, some of them trade-marked, in a variety of
environments : browsers, web servers, etc.

Some of us want a one-word generic name and think that lower case
'javascript' is as good as any. Thomas rejects that idea absolutely,
often with accompanying abuse.

It *is* as good as any. And the accompanying abuse is, IMO, "usually"
rather than merely "often". Suggested responses to PointyHead vary from
neutral to returning the abuse with interest. One can, of course,
ignore him, but that might confuse newcomers.

Hmmm, perhaps a FAQ entry about his egregious behaviour might be in
order, so newcomers can be quickly warned.

 

[Thomas Richter]

Am 13.06.2014 00:11, schrieb Stephen Sprunk:

Does ECMA do _anything_ useful, or are they just another puppet of Intel
and/or Microsoft? I'd never heard of them prior to the ECMAScript
nonsense, and I've never heard of them since.

No, not at all. ECMA is not dependent on Microsoft or Intel. To give you
a brief idea what ECMA is: It is approximately for Europe what ANSI is
for America: A European standardization organization. ANSI is part of
ISO (same as DIN in Germany), though ECMA is independent of the ISO
family of organizations. It would probably be closer to say ECMA is
something like ITU (telecommunications, former CCITT) for Europe.
Similar to ISO and ITU, and IEC, ECMA is hosted in Geneva.

So long,
Thomas

 

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Am 13.06.2014 00:11, schrieb Stephen Sprunk:

No, not at all. ECMA is not dependent on Microsoft or Intel.

That much is true.

To give you a brief idea what ECMA is: It is approximately for Europe what
ANSI is for America: A European standardization organization.

The name is Ecma International for a reason.

First research, then post.

And stop cross-posting.

 

[Tim Streater]

Am 13.06.2014 00:11, schrieb Stephen Sprunk:


No, not at all. ECMA is not dependent on Microsoft or Intel. To give you
a brief idea what ECMA is: It is approximately for Europe what ANSI is
for America: A European standardization organization. ANSI is part of
ISO (same as DIN in Germany), though ECMA is independent of the ISO
family of organizations. It would probably be closer to say ECMA is
something like ITU (telecommunications, former CCITT) for Europe.
Similar to ISO and ITU, and IEC, ECMA is hosted in Geneva.

AIUI, it stands for European Computer Manufacturers Association.

 

[Malcolm McLean]

The name is Ecma International for a reason.

First research, then post.

Nothing's easier than to throw initials at people and make out that they are ignorant.

All it means is that not everyone is part of the particular sub-culture which uses the
jargon. It says very little about their understanding of the subject at hand.

 

[Kaz Kylheku]

AIUI, it stands for European Computer Manufacturers Association.

Ah, you would think so, but these wankers were jealous of how ISO
is not supposed to be an acronym but just "eye so", and actually
stands for "International Organization for Standardization" or something like
that.

So they renamed themselves to Ecma, which is no longer an acronym, but just "ek
mah".

But "ISO" is actaully clever because it corresponds to the "iso-" Greek
prefix, and standardization ensures "sameness" in some sense.

Whereas Ecma just reminds the reader of "eczema".

 

[Stefan Ram]

Only to those who do not care to read the introduction of the language
specification[1]. And that is exactly the point: many who speak of ....
[1] <http://www.ecma-international.org/ecma-262/5.1/>

»The nice thing about standards is that you have so many to choose from.«
Andrew Stuart Tanenbaum

»ISO/IEC 16262:2011 defines the ECMAScript scripting language.«
International Organization for Standardization

 

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

[F'up2 comp.lang.javascript]

Stefan Ram wrote in comp.lang.c and comp.lang.javascript:

Only to those who do not care to read the introduction of the language
specification[1]. And that is exactly the point: many who speak of
[...]
[1] <http://www.ecma-international.org/ecma-262/5.1/>

»The nice thing about standards is that you have so many to choose
from.«
Andrew Stuart Tanenbaum

»ISO/IEC 16262:2011 defines the ECMAScript scripting language.«
International Organization for Standardization

ISO/IEC 16262:2011 is just the ISO/IEC version of ECMA-262-5.1 [1], which is
the current Edition that is implemented by current versions of script
engines. Some engines also implement features specified in the upcoming
ECMA-262-6. [2][3] (This is not peculiar. ISO/IEC 15445:2000(E) is the
ISO/IEC version of HTML 4.0. Current Web browsers implement HTML5. There
are many C compilers, but only one ANSI/ISO C.)

Usenet is organized into groups of topics. Please stop crossposting to
where it is off-topic. Please set Followup-To (F'up2) to where it is
on-topic. Please update the Subject header field as shown if the subject of
discussion changes.

___________
[1] <http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php>
[2] <http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:specification_drafts>
[3] <https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference#Keyed_collections>

 

[Malcolm McLean]

[F'up2 comp.lang.javascript]

Stefan Ram wrote in comp.lang.c and comp.lang.javascript:

Only to those who do not care to read the introduction of the language
specification[1]. And that is exactly the point: many who speak of
[...]
[1] <http://www.ecma-international.org/ecma-262/5.1/>

»The nice thing about standards is that you have so many to choose
from.«
Andrew Stuart Tanenbaum

»ISO/IEC 16262:2011 defines the ECMAScript scripting language.«
International Organization for Standardization

ISO/IEC 16262:2011 is just the ISO/IEC version of ECMA-262-5.1 [1], whichis
the current Edition that is implemented by current versions of script
engines. Some engines also implement features specified in the upcoming
ECMA-262-6. [2][3] (This is not peculiar. ISO/IEC 15445:2000(E) is the
ISO/IEC version of HTML 4.0. Current Web browsers implement HTML5. There
are many C compilers, but only one ANSI/ISO C.)

Help.
The only real response to a alphabet soup of standards is to be very conservative, alternatively
target only one particular browser, and hope that things eventually settle down.

 

[Kenny McCormack]

Help.
The only real response to a alphabet soup of standards is to be very
conservative, alternatively target only one particular browser, and hope
that things eventually settle down.

LBJ took the IRT down to 4th St. USA...

BTW, you'll never get anywhere trying to have a conversation with The
Pointed One.

 

[BGB]

LBJ took the IRT down to 4th St. USA...

BTW, you'll never get anywhere trying to have a conversation with The
Pointed One.

yeah, this is part of why I wasn't posting anywhere cross-posted to
c.l.js, just didn't really want to deal with him...

like, there is more to life than pedantics and pet peeves.


though, IMHO, JS is one of those languages that makes me happy I mostly
write code in C.

actually, similar sort of goes for Java as well, but for different
reasons, and I would generally take having to develop any non-trivial
code in Java over taking JS or ES.

but, it is all that is offered in browsers, and my script-language for
my projects is loosely ES-based (though now mostly statically-typed and
class/instance), so meh, whatever sometimes...


but, targeting browsers mostly means either dealing with JS, or some of
the arbitrary limitations of Emscripten (no dynamic linking, ...), so
part of where my own (newer) C-compiler effort was coming from: taking a
different approach, and generally compiling bytecode to JS on the client
(the VM is itself compiled to HTML5/JS, currently using Emscripten).

well, among other side-goals (like, having a hopefully less
annoying/problematic alternative to the Android NDK), ...

mostly this would be (as-is), for my own uses.