4 ms·
So, ECMAScript 2015 is ES6 and ECMAScript 2016 (this) is ES7 [0]. I like the new features (promises, arrow functions etc.) but the naming is as confusing as Vis
by jsingleton 10y ago
So, ECMAScript 2015 is ES6 and ECMAScript 2016 (this) is ES7 [0]. I like the new features (promises, arrow functions etc.) but the naming is as confusing as Visual Studio. VS 2015 is the current version but VS 15 is the next one.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECMAScript https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECMAScript
- dangoor 10y agoECMAScript is going to be updated on an annual basis now, so it is easier to just use the year going forward. Promises and arrow functions are ES2015 features, by the way. Already directly supported in a slight majority of the browsers in use: http://caniuse.com/#search=arrow http://caniuse.com/#search=arrow
- nojvek 10y agoWe should just call it ES15 and ES16.
- jsingleton 10y agoBut then what about ECMAScript 2024 and ECMAScript 2025?
- RobertKerans 10y agoES24 and ES25?
- jsingleton 10y agoYeah, I was referring to new feature in ES2015/ES6, but really I mean just new ES features in general are good. It's just the naming that's problematic. Even http://caniuse.com/#feat=arrow-functions http://caniuse.com/#feat=arrow-functions says: > See support for arrow functions (ECMAScript 6)
- dangoor 10y agoGotcha. Yeah, but hopefully the naming problem is temporary because it's a new change. If we see people referring to ES2017 as ES8, then we'll know the new naming had failed.
- rimunroe 10y agoThey decided on the "ECMAScript YYYY" naming format a while before the 2015 spec was finalized. Many people in the community continued to call things ES6 and ES7, but those aren't the official names.
- jsingleton 10y agoI guess it's just a lot easier to type (and even say). For example, the current discussion on TypeScript: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11920451 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11920451 At least they didn't use 5 digit years. :)