4 ms·

Same. ECMA changed to using dates a while ago and people are still saying "ES6" and "ES7". I've also seen people refer to all new syntax and features as "ES6" i

Same. ECMA changed to using dates a while ago and people are still saying "ES6" and "ES7". I've also seen people refer to all new syntax and features as "ES6" including things that in ECMAScript2017. Honestly though I think ECMA has some of the blame for this. I don't think they do a very good job communicating changes and versioning.

DarkTree 10y ago
Yeah I think there is just a lot of friction when moving from the concise "ES6" to the lengthy, and somewhat awkward "ECMAScript2015". The fact that so many people still use the terms ES6 and ES7 gives others even less incentive to use the official naming scheme. Hopefully, it will iron itself out in the future.
- joshowens 10y ago
  What did ES5 change to then? I never heard. Honestly, ES2015 just seems odd to me.
- cloverich 10y ago
  I think its not just the length but the concept: Every other language has a normal looking version (Rust 1.12 announced! Java 8, etc). They had that with ES3, ES5, ES6, then decided (perhaps for very good reasons) to change to a unique (?) version scheme.
  - slavik81 10y ago
    C and C++ also use years. For example, C99 was standardized in 1999. C++11 was standardized in 2011.
Swizec 10y ago
In my experience ES6 means "modern". Anything that wasn't there before 2015. Considering we're encouraging everyone to use transpilers and features from the future, and that browsers will forever lag just a little bit behind, I don't think that's a super bad idea. Most programmers don't care exactly which features are in ECMAScript2015 and which are in ECMAScript2016 etc. All they care about is "Can I do this thing I saw in a code example? Oh cool, it works". Detailed versioning is an implementation detail.
- BinaryIdiot 10y ago
  > Considering we're encouraging everyone to use transpilers and features from the future Please don't encourage this. Transpilers have a huge set of dependencies and technical complexity. I know everyone is in a hurry to use the next standard ASAP but, especially for new people, I think transpilers should be recommended against. Otherwise now you now need a build process and you need to learn how to use map files to properly debug back to your original code not to mention being unable to properly debug on older / alternative browsers. > Detailed versioning is an implementation detail. For the engine sure but for everyone who needs the features they need to know what is supported when, etc. It's far, far more than a simple implementation detail.
  - davidjnelson 10y ago
    It's a good point, they are complex. But on a team doing a complex spa, you'd need someone who's a tooling expert right?
    - BinaryIdiot 10y ago
      > But on a team doing a complex spa, you'd need someone who's a tooling expert right? I would argue no. Granted not everyone needs to be an expert on the tool chain and this ends up happening probably a majority of the time anyway but if most are ignorant how the tool chain works I don't think that's a good position to be in either. When a bug / misconfiguration issue rears its ugly head you need more than a few people being able to debug it. But even outside of that I think it's incredibly helpful for the developer to fully understand how something is going to be built and deployed.
      - davidjnelson 10y ago
        I agree with what you're saying. You don't want to get stuck in a corner. That's smart and pragmatic. Perhaps an expert that mentors the rest of the team? I just don't see how we can do without software build tools. They are so common in almost every language/platform I've used.
bcheung 10y ago
Yeah, there's also that the naming convention has changed formats so many times in the last few years too. People need to see repeated pattern for it to sink in.

DarkTree 10y ago

Yeah I think there is just a lot of friction when moving from the concise "ES6" to the lengthy, and somewhat awkward "ECMAScript2015". The fact that so many people still use the terms ES6 and ES7 gives others even less incentive to use the official naming scheme. Hopefully, it will iron itself out in the future.

joshowens 10y ago
What did ES5 change to then? I never heard. Honestly, ES2015 just seems odd to me.
cloverich 10y ago
I think its not just the length but the concept: Every other language has a normal looking version (Rust 1.12 announced! Java 8, etc). They had that with ES3, ES5, ES6, then decided (perhaps for very good reasons) to change to a unique (?) version scheme.
- slavik81 10y ago
  C and C++ also use years. For example, C99 was standardized in 1999. C++11 was standardized in 2011.

Swizec 10y ago

In my experience ES6 means "modern". Anything that wasn't there before 2015. Considering we're encouraging everyone to use transpilers and features from the future, and that browsers will forever lag just a little bit behind, I don't think that's a super bad idea. Most programmers don't care exactly which features are in ECMAScript2015 and which are in ECMAScript2016 etc. All they care about is "Can I do this thing I saw in a code example? Oh cool, it works". Detailed versioning is an implementation detail.

BinaryIdiot 10y ago
> Considering we're encouraging everyone to use transpilers and features from the future Please don't encourage this. Transpilers have a huge set of dependencies and technical complexity. I know everyone is in a hurry to use the next standard ASAP but, especially for new people, I think transpilers should be recommended against. Otherwise now you now need a build process and you need to learn how to use map files to properly debug back to your original code not to mention being unable to properly debug on older / alternative browsers. > Detailed versioning is an implementation detail. For the engine sure but for everyone who needs the features they need to know what is supported when, etc. It's far, far more than a simple implementation detail.
- davidjnelson 10y ago
  It's a good point, they are complex. But on a team doing a complex spa, you'd need someone who's a tooling expert right?
  - BinaryIdiot 10y ago
    > But on a team doing a complex spa, you'd need someone who's a tooling expert right? I would argue no. Granted not everyone needs to be an expert on the tool chain and this ends up happening probably a majority of the time anyway but if most are ignorant how the tool chain works I don't think that's a good position to be in either. When a bug / misconfiguration issue rears its ugly head you need more than a few people being able to debug it. But even outside of that I think it's incredibly helpful for the developer to fully understand how something is going to be built and deployed.
    - davidjnelson 10y ago
      I agree with what you're saying. You don't want to get stuck in a corner. That's smart and pragmatic. Perhaps an expert that mentors the rest of the team? I just don't see how we can do without software build tools. They are so common in almost every language/platform I've used.

bcheung 10y ago

Yeah, there's also that the naming convention has changed formats so many times in the last few years too. People need to see repeated pattern for it to sink in.