7 ms·
Really hate the naming for JS standards.. ES2017, ES8, ECMA-262. Way to confuse people :/
by pi-rat 9y ago
Really hate the naming for JS standards.. ES2017, ES8, ECMA-262. Way to confuse people :/
- wwwigham 9y agoES2017 is the conventional name now that there's annual publications of the spec. ES8 is someone reading the edition number on the document and trying to be terse. ECMA-262 is the formal name of the spec document, not the language the spec defines. All slightly different things, only one of which names the language itself, officially.
- jl6 9y agoWhich one is it that names the language officially?
- JeremyBanks 9y agoECMAScript 2017, that's the name given by the speciation document, which is itself known officially as ECMA-262 edition 8.
- PrunJuice 9y agoSo which name is the correct one?
- komali2 9y agoEcmascript 2017.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- gregmac 9y agoIs calling it "Javascript" even still correct, or should it be called "ECMAScript"? If someone says they write "Javascript using ES2017" are they talking utter nonsense? I can find some references to "Javascript" being an implementation of ECMAScript, but doesn't appear to true [1]. Mozilla's implementation is SpiderMonkey, Google's is V8, and Microsoft has Chakra and JScript. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECMAScript#Implementations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECMAScript#Implementations
- wamatt 9y agoSort of related: JS is officially written as "JavaScript" (yeah, ikr) and surprisingly the trademark is owned by Oracle.
- cerved 9y agoThis goes back to the Netscape / SUN partnership. SUN allowed Netscape to use their trademarked name Java when they created JavaScript. Microsoft created JScript. When they decided to standardize the language into a spec, they did so with ECMA. The involved parties couldn't agree on a name so they settled on the highly original name ECMAScript as a compromise. "Eich commented that "ECMAScript was always an unwanted trade name that sounds like a skin disease.""
- gsnedders 9y agoHistory time! Netscape created a language which they called LiveScript when it first shipped in a beta build, largely influenced by Java. By the time of Netscape Navigator 2.0 beta 3, they had negotiated a license for the Java name from Sun and renamed the language JavaScript (and, as wamatt pointed out, Sun owned the JavaScript trademark, now owned by Oracle following the Sun acquisition). IE3 shipped a reverse-engineered copy of JavaScript, which they called JScript because they didn't have a license to the JavaScript trademark. Later in the same year that Netscape Navigator 2.0 and IE3 shipped, Netscape submitted a specification of their JavaScript language to Ecma. What followed, as far as I'm aware, was a bit of a debate about naming: JavaScript was basically out of the question due to it being a Sun trademark, JScript was a MS term that Netscape didn't want to legitimise, and hence the compromise was ECMAScript (why this uses the pre-1994 capitalisation of Ecma is a good question!). So, essentially, JavaScript, JScript, and ECMAScript are three names for the same language. This then gets a bit complicated as Netscape and then Mozilla referred to ECMAScript revisions as JavaScript versions, and then started adding non-standard extensions as new JavaScript versions, though they've basically killed that now.
- BurningFrog 9y agoThink of it as JS 8 came out in 2017 and is defined in a document with an irrelevant ID.
- ScottBurson 9y ago"The versions of Unix are numbered in a logical sequence: 5, 6, 6PWB, 7, 4.1, III, 4.3, V, and V.3." -- quoted from memory from The Unix-Haters Handbook So you see, they're following long-standing industry practice :-)
- bartread 9y agoThe .NET and .NET Core version numbers are another minefield, and I still can't remember (and don't really care) what's what. Your choices are either to laugh or be filled with rage. I'm coming round to the first one having mostly opted for the second in recent months.
- int_19h 9y agoWhat's particularly weird about .NET version numbers? They're monotonically increasing, with the exception of .NET Core getting a reset to 1.0 (which kinda makes sense, since it's a different and incompatible product).
- tmzt 9y agoFramework 1.4 > 4.7 > 4.6.1?
- reitanqild 9y agoJust copying another idea from Java I'd guess: Java 1.4 -> Java 5. (Yes, I'm a Java programmer)
- int_19h 9y ago1.4 is not really "greater than" 4.7, they're just two different parallel tracks.
- ltowel 9y ago.Net Framework, .Net Core and .Net Standard all have different version numbers, which correspond to different things. In addition, since Core and Standard are both in the 1.Xs currently, it can be confusing. Finally, the .Net Core SDK is versioned differently from the run time, both somewhere in the low 1.Xs right now. ``` >dotnet Microsoft .NET Core Shared Framework Host Version : 1.1.0 Build : 928f77c4bc3f49d892459992fb6e1d5542cb5e86 ``` ``` >dotnet --version 1.0.0-preview2-1-003177 ``` The version numbers aren't necessarily weird, but the versioning sure is. Disclaimer: MS Employee who uses Dotnet, but doesn't work on it.
- amelius 9y ago> Way to confuse people :/ JavaScript, that's a scriptable version of Java, right? /sarcasm