JS 1.7 support: Who has it, etc.?

[joebloe]

Which browsers, if any, other than FF2/3, support Javascript 1.7? And
in those, how do you turn it on? As in, for FF2 you must say:

<script type="application/javascript;version=1.7">

or the equivalent. Do you know the timeline for upcoming JS 1.7
support in browsers that don't currently support it?

 

[Martin Honnen]

Which browsers, if any, other than FF2/3, support Javascript 1.7?

Other Mozilla browsers like SeaMonkey or Camino do. Actually I know that
SeaMonkey does, I have never used Camino but it is based on Gecko and
Spidermonkey as well so I would be pretty suprised if the latest Camino
version would not support JavaScript 1.7.

 

[joebloe]

Maybe I am not looking in the right place, but it has seemed bizarrely
difficult to determine what browser supports what, and what an
upcoming release will support. Mozilla's developer page says, plainly,
"Version xx supports 1.6 and here are the new features in 1.6 and how
to use them ... Version xx supports 1.7 and here are ..." etc. But
where is that for MSIE, Opera, Safari, ....?

The application I'm working on doesn't have to be backward compatible
with anything and I'm even okay with requiring a user to run it from
FF2 or FF3, but I'd like to know what's up with the rest of the
browser world where future JS/ECMAscript support is concerned.

 

[Jeremy]

Maybe I am not looking in the right place, but it has seemed bizarrely
difficult to determine what browser supports what, and what an
upcoming release will support. Mozilla's developer page says, plainly,
"Version xx supports 1.6 and here are the new features in 1.6 and how
to use them ... Version xx supports 1.7 and here are ..." etc. But
where is that for MSIE, Opera, Safari, ....?

The application I'm working on doesn't have to be backward compatible
with anything and I'm even okay with requiring a user to run it from
FF2 or FF3, but I'd like to know what's up with the rest of the
browser world where future JS/ECMAscript support is concerned.

Wikipedia has a comparison table. I can't vouch for its accuracy, but
it seems like it's better than nothing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_layout_engines_(ECMAScript)

Jeremy

 

[joebloe]

Wikipedia has a comparison table. I can't vouch for its accuracy, but
it seems like it's better than nothing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_layout_engines_(ECMAScri...

I saw that, but I don't know where they got that info from, and on its
surface it is wildly inaccurate. :-(

 

[John G Harris]

Maybe I am not looking in the right place, but it has seemed bizarrely
difficult to determine what browser supports what, and what an
upcoming release will support. Mozilla's developer page says, plainly,
"Version xx supports 1.6 and here are the new features in 1.6 and how
to use them ... Version xx supports 1.7 and here are ..." etc. But
where is that for MSIE, Opera, Safari, ....?

<snip>

Microsoft has never been good at saying what it's done. There are legal
reasons why it has to be very careful about announcing what future
products will do.

Where does the number 1.7 come from ?

John

 

[VK]

Maybe I am not looking in the right place, but it has seemed bizarrely
difficult to determine what browser supports what, and what an
upcoming release will support. Mozilla's developer page says, plainly,
"Version xx supports 1.6 and here are the new features in 1.6 and how
to use them ... Version xx supports 1.7 and here are ..." etc. But
where is that for MSIE, Opera, Safari, ....?

Microsoft has its own brand name of ECMAScript implementation called
JScript and its own version numbering schema going from IE3 (the first
one with JScript support). The schema is not fully consistent, being
attached at different times either to major JScript update or to the
browser version number. See it at:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/2z6exc9e(VS.80).aspx
See also version vector details for conditional comments at
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/2z6exc9e(VS.80).aspx
The current version for both IE6 and IE7 it is 5.6 with lesser-major
numbers different. On any IE just run
window.alert(''.concat(
ScriptEngineMajorVersion(), '.',
ScriptEngineMinorVersion(), '.',
ScriptEngineBuildVersion()
));
to see the exact numbers.
There is a gap left between 5.6 and 7 for upcoming upgrades, and the
next version number in use is 7.0 for JScript.NET but this engine is
server-side only so out of your interest I guess.

Other producers are using the original Netscape numbering schema with
JavaScript 1.0 for Netscape 2.x and JavaScript 1.5 being the current
industry standard de facto.
JavaScript 1.5 is pretty much equal to JScript 5.6 lesser some minor
algorithm implementations.

JavaScript 1.6 (Firefox 1.5) and JavaScript 1.7 (Firefox 2.0) are
Mozilla Foundation proprietary extensions of the base 1.5
Not all feature are backward compatible with 1.5, but any 1.5-
compliant program will run under 1.6 or 1.7

So overall you don't need to have any headache at all with versions
unless you want to use some of new Gecko-specific features.

Hope it helps.

 

[joebloe]

JavaScript 1.6 (Firefox 1.5) and JavaScript 1.7 (Firefox 2.0) are
Mozilla Foundation proprietary extensions of the base 1.5
Not all feature are backward compatible with 1.5, but any 1.5-
compliant program will run under 1.6 or 1.7

So overall you don't need to have any headache at all with versions
unless you want to use some of new Gecko-specific features.

Hope it helps.

Well, I'm committed to using JS 1.7 features (like let so I guess
it'll be Gecko for me for at least another year. Or four. Which is
okay; I have no problem telling people to use Firefox for my (game)
application. But who knows, maybe Webkit will implement 1.7/1.8/etc.
before then. Opera and MSIE, forget it....

-j

 

[VK]

Well, I'm committed to using JS 1.7 features (like let so I guess
it'll be Gecko for me for at least another year. Or four. Which is
okay; I have no problem telling people to use Firefox for my (game)
application. But who knows, maybe Webkit will implement 1.7/1.8/etc.
before then. Opera and MSIE, forget it....

It is your decision to make. For Mozilla Foundation JavaScript
specific questions you may also ask at
mozilla.dev.tech.javascript (language specific)
and
mozilla.dev.tech.js-engine (engine specific)
They are rather regularly being read by people who are actually making
the things.

 

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

[JScript]
There is a gap left between 5.6 and 7 for upcoming upgrades, and the
next version number in use is 7.0 for JScript.NET but this engine is
server-side only so out of your interest I guess.

JScript 5.7 for Windows XP (and probably 5.8 for Vista and Windows Server
2008) obviously exist, however I have yet to check if there are any
differences to JScript 5.6 or if the increase in version is only attributed
to them being introduced with different OS versions.

Other producers are using the original Netscape numbering schema with
JavaScript 1.0 for Netscape 2.x and JavaScript 1.5 being the current
industry standard de facto.

Other products simply do not support JScript or JavaScript. And if anything
is an industry standard right now, it is not JavaScript 1.5 but ECMAScript
(ECMA-262) Edition 3 or ISO/IEC 16262:2002.

JavaScript 1.5 is pretty much equal to JScript 5.6 lesser some minor
algorithm implementations.

Not true, as has been discussed here already.

JavaScript 1.6 (Firefox 1.5) and JavaScript 1.7 (Firefox 2.0) are
Mozilla Foundation proprietary extensions of the base 1.5

which also introduces proprietary features, however all of those
are backed up by the Specifications' Conformance sections.

Not all feature are backward compatible with 1.5, but any 1.5-
compliant program will run under 1.6 or 1.7

So overall you don't need to have any headache at all with versions
unless you want to use some of new Gecko-specific features.

Not true either, Often Wrong.

http://PointedEars.de/es-matrix


PointedEars

 

[VK]

JScript 5.7 for Windows XP (and probably 5.8 for Vista and Windows Server
2008) obviously exist, however I have yet to check if there are any
differences to JScript 5.6 or if the increase in version is only attributed
to them being introduced with different OS versions.

JScript 5.7 for IE7 does exists but so far it updates 5.6 only on
Vista installation of IE7 unless someone does manual jscript.dll
upgrade.
It has a noticeably upgraded gc mechanics to better handle intensive
memory usage in long running applications. See Eric Lippert blog at
http://blogs.msdn.com/ericlippert/archive/2003/09/17/53038.aspx
and Paul Dempsey explanations on 5.7 in blog's comments.
Nothing explicit what you could determine from the outside of the box:
just some solutions should start using lesser runtime memory.

Other products simply do not support JScript or JavaScript.

Your regular nonsense again.

And if anything
is an industry standard right now, it is not JavaScript 1.5 but ECMAScript
(ECMA-262) Edition 3 or ISO/IEC 16262:2002.

But this forum is not about ECMAScript - it is about Javascript.

Not true, as has been discussed here already.

The [1,2,] issue or the named function within an expression and a
dozen of similar discrepancies are way not enough to see two different
languages here. There are much more bigger differences between some C+
+ or Java implementations. Such issues still should be mentioned when
they are important but otherwise it is one language we are programming
on.

which also introduces proprietary features, however all of those
are backed up by the Specifications' Conformance sections.

like having new type of "comments" <? ... ?> ;-)
var foo = "foo"; <? foobar ?>
alert(foo); // no problem
Yes, I am aware of the XML grounds of this bizarrity but I mean can
you take such source code w/o modifications anywhere outside of most
modern Gecko builds?

Not true either, Often Wrong.

Sometimes wrong, mostly right. Do not mix DOM interfaces' cross-
browser mess which is indeed huge and Javascript itself.

 

[joebloe]

VK wrote:

which also introduces proprietary features, however all of those
are backed up by the Specifications' Conformance sections.

Why exactly would I want to continue writing Javascript 1.5? Is this
like writing FORTRAN 77? Something has to drive the adoption of the
improved, more expressive language. You say "it's my choice" like
there's something wrong with that choice. What, you resent change?

Yes, but the Gecko-specific features (which are largely a subset of
and forward compatible with ECMAScript Ed 4) are, how to express this,
*useful*. And all of them will be adopted by other browsers in the
next year or two, except for IE, and who knows what will happen there.
Most likely, MS will adopt someone else's rendering/Javascript engine,
lest the killer app come along that won't run on IE.

 

[joebloe]

There are much more bigger differences between some C+
+ or Java implementations.

Not really, unless you count lame implementations like gcj that no one
uses (and that don't work). Java compilers and runtimes have extremely
high cross compatibility. The issues with C++ and C are much more
related to the system and OS environment than to language. Different
browsers, at least up till now, are like mutually exclusive
programming environments once you get to a certain level. I think this
is all going to change in the next couple of years, though, with
rendering engines finally catching up to and even driving standards,
and with there no longer being the feeling that writing for or
developing anything beyond IE is pointless.

 

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

[trimmed attribution novel]

JScript 5.7 for IE7 does exists but so far it updates 5.6 only on Vista
installation of IE7 unless someone does manual jscript.dll upgrade.

It exists here on my *Windows XP* SP 2 system, presumably since I updated it
to IE 7.0. Otherwise I have only let the latest security fixes installed,
*automatically*.

It has a noticeably upgraded gc mechanics to better handle intensive
memory usage in long running applications. See Eric Lippert blog at
http://blogs.msdn.com/ericlippert/archive/2003/09/17/53038.aspx and Paul
Dempsey explanations on 5.7 in blog's comments. Nothing explicit what you
could determine from the outside of the box: just some solutions should
start using lesser runtime memory.

That would be good to know, thanks.

Your regular nonsense again.

Other products (i.e. those not using Trident or Gecko as layout engine) do
not support JScript oder JavaScript, but their own ECMAScript
implementation. It's a fact that you refuse to accept because it does not
fit into your tiny fantasy world.

But this forum is not about ECMAScript - it is about Javascript.

This newsgroup is for all ECMAScript implementations unless there exists a
special newsgroup for a specification within the Big 8. That its charter
is somewhat outdated does not change the nature of the discussions we have
here, and the reason why we do.

Not true, as has been discussed here already.

The [1,2,] issue or the named function within an expression and a dozen
of similar discrepancies are way not enough to see two different
languages here. There are much more bigger differences between some C+ +
or Java implementations. Such issues still should be mentioned when they
are important but otherwise it is one language we are programming on.

I suggest you visit the ECMAScript Support Matrix site and get yourself
informed. If you don't trust that you may also look it up in the MSDN
Library (or ask Eric Lippert, but I doubt he'll be pleased to endure your
style again).

like having new type of "comments" <? ... ?> ;-) var foo = "foo"; <?
foobar ?> alert(foo); // no problem

Not true. It is no problem if the `<?' is followed by text that makes it
a a processing instruction. It is a SyntaxError ("invalid XML markup")
otherwise.

Yes, I am aware of the XML grounds of this bizarrity

Apparently you are not aware that this is not only an allowed, but also a
specified extension of ECMA-262, namely ECMA-357 / ISO/IEC 22537:2006
"ECMAScript for XML" (E4X).

but I mean can you take such source code w/o modifications anywhere
outside of most modern Gecko builds?

No, I don't think you can. That is what it makes a language of its own.
If only you would finally see that ...

Sometimes wrong, mostly right.

And of what do you dream at night?

Do not mix DOM interfaces' cross- browser
mess which is indeed huge and Javascript itself.--

Whatever.


PointedEars

 

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

[trimmed attribution novel]

But this forum is not about ECMAScript - it is about Javascript.

This newsgroup is for all ECMAScript implementations unless there exists a ^^^^^^^^^!
special newsgroup for a specification within the Big 8. That its charter ^^^^^^^^^^^^ implementation
is somewhat outdated does not change the nature of the discussions we have
here, and the reason why we do.

 

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

It exists here on my *Windows XP* SP 2 system, presumably since I updated it
to IE 7.0. Otherwise I have only let the latest security fixes installed,
*automatically*.

I just spotted JScript *8.0* being provided by .NET 3.5 and supported by
Visual Studio 2008:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/x85xxsf4.aspx

I will update the ECMAScript Support Matrix accordingly.


PointedEars

 

[VK]

I just spotted JScript *8.0* being provided by .NET 3.5 and supported by
Visual Studio 2008:

JScript 8.0 is being provided since .NET 2.0 - but better latter than
never, as they say
Obviously Microsoft considers JScript 8.0 as the promo replacement for
JScript 7.0 of .NET 1.x where the latter considered as a not so
successful first attempt. At least all mentions of "JScript.NET 7.0"
at MSDN are rather carefully replaced by "JScript 8.0" (with the
".NET" part drop). Just to remind: as of now any JScript above 5.7 has
no direct relations of any kind with the thematics of this newsgroup -
no more than say version vectors of PHP or Perl.

I will update the ECMAScript Support Matrix accordingly.

You also may take a decision about the generic window host object
methods: either you list them everywhere or you drop them everywhere
so only Global methods being considered as a part of the language.
Right now it claims what say window.setTimeout is currently supported
only by Gecko builds and never was supported by IE. Of course on your
personal pages you may be as ridiculous as you want, but if you want
to reference it here than bring it first in a good order, please.

 

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

JScript 8.0 is being provided since .NET 2.0 - but better latter than
never, as they say

I think I'll better double-check that before accepting it as a fact.

Obviously Microsoft considers JScript 8.0 as the promo replacement

Speculation about intentions is considered a fallacious argument, and it
leads nowhere.

[...] Just to remind: as of now any JScript above 5.7 has no direct
relations of any kind with the thematics of this newsgroup -

Utter nonsense.

You also may take a decision about the generic window host object
methods:

There is nothing generic about them. Do you even know what the word means?

either you list them everywhere or you drop them everywhere
so only Global methods being considered as a part of the language.
Right now it claims what say window.setTimeout is currently supported
only by Gecko builds and never was supported by IE. Of course on your
personal pages you may be as ridiculous as you want, but if you want
to reference it here than bring it first in a good order, please.

Often Wrong, as I have explained several times before (to you), in
JavaScript the host-dependent features that are now considered "DOM Level 0"
were once considered part of the programming language as can be seen in the
Netscape JavaScript 1.0 to 1.3 Guides/References. (Hence the popularity of
"DOM Level 0" features among current user agents.) Those have been
(correctly) weeded out as of JavaScript 1.4 (SSJS only) as the corresponding
References show, and moved to the Gecko DOM API as the footnote in the ES
Matrix explains.

With JScript however, as JScript was implemented after JavaScript, those
features have never been part of the programming language but always
part of the MSHTML DOM API. At least it has been so since about JScript
5.0, and the MSDN Library documentation clearly distinguishes between the
language ("JScript Reference") and the DOM API ("HTML and DHTML Reference").
If you can point me to an Eric Lippert statement saying that it was
different before, so much the better. Otherwise I suggest you be silent on
the matter.

Don't call people ridiculous and don't talk about "good order" unless you
know what you are talking about. Probably someone told you before that you
of all people, the nonsense you post to need correction almost every time,
should be very slow to use such strong words. One wonders if you
deliberately make a fool out of yourself in public of if this is just plain
incompetence.


PointedEars

 

[VK]

With JScript however, as JScript was implemented after JavaScript, those
features have never been part of the programming language but always
part of the MSHTML DOM API. At least it has been so since about JScript
5.0, and the MSDN Library documentation clearly distinguishes between the
language ("JScript Reference") and the DOM API ("HTML and DHTML Reference").

Other words you Matrix is a collection of the earliest usages of
certain keywords such as "setTimeout", "alert", "window" etc. you
could fine in official JavaScript/JScript documentation archives of
some noticeable browser producers. Got it. It is an interesting
linguistical source then that may come useful someday for historians.
I am puzzled though why then you keep referring it recently here as
some practical coding helper or some compatibility issues helper? What
does the first have to do with the second?

If you can point me to an Eric Lippert statement saying that it was
different before, so much the better.

Different what? You need a reputable prove that windows.setTimeout is
available since IE3.0 and till now? Or that window.setTimeout was used
in JScript references for IE3? Sorry, I'm enjoying of gur
"vagryyrpghny banavfz", gur erny frk vf zhpu orggre

 

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Other words you Matrix is a collection of the earliest usages of certain
keywords such as "setTimeout", "alert", "window" etc. you could fine in
official JavaScript/JScript documentation archives of some noticeable
browser producers. Got it. It is an interesting linguistical source then
that may come useful someday for historians.

No, it is useful for everyday programming as new *language features*
are still coming up and you want to know if it is feasible to use them.

I am puzzled though why then you keep referring it recently here as some
practical coding helper or some compatibility issues helper? What does
the first have to do with the second?

I am not surprised your puny mind cannot comprehend that.

Different what?

That some features now considered part of the MSHTML DOM API have been part
of JScript before.

You need a reputable prove that windows.setTimeout is available since
IE3.0 and till now?

No, I am talking about the *programming language*, JScript.

Or that window.setTimeout was used in JScript references for IE3?

Something like that.

Sorry, I'm enjoying of gur "vagryyrpghny banavfz", gur erny frk vf zhpu
orggre

Pot, cattle, black. This newsgroup has had enough of your zragny ibzvgvat
already.


PointedEars