4 ms·

Maybe JScript (Microsoft's proprietary JavaScript) and/or VBScript (VB sometimes shoehorned into a JavaScript-style role) would work for the first one, but to b

by rodw 7y ago

Maybe JScript (Microsoft's proprietary JavaScript) and/or VBScript (VB sometimes shoehorned into a JavaScript-style role) would work for the first one, but to be honest I don't have enough experience with either to know if the "but worse" statement is fair. Also the "sweet spot" for Lua has some overlap with JavaScript but I don't think the "but worse" complaint is quite fair and I think Lua may actually pre-date JS. But surely there are a bunch of HTML templating languages that would fit the category of "PHP but worse".

gdy 7y ago
>I think Lua may actually pre-date JS And it does
mumblemumble 7y ago
JScript is misunderstood. It isn't a proprietary JavaScript competitor. It's just Microsoft's implementation of JavaScript. They had to use a different name when talking about it in order to get around trademark issues. There were some differences from Netscape's implementation, but they're pretty minor compared to the dialectical differences between competing implementations of pretty much any other language.
- hajile 7y ago
  You misunderstand the real evil of JScript. Microsoft made it to be a complete clone of Netscape's implementation. When Netscape decided to standardize the language, they went to ECMA. Microsoft didn't have ECMA completely under their thumb, but did have some control. Netscape wanted to fix some fundamental issues with JS, but MS had just spent a ton of money making their clone, so they insisted all those problematic bits stay right where they were. So, JScript is to blame for most of the bad parts of Javascript and is therefore worthy of all the hate you could possible heap upon it.
  - mumblemumble 7y ago
    That's all beside the point. The focus of the discussion was whether JScript could be described as a new language ("you have reinvented...") that's basically Javascript but worse. It can't, because it fails the "new language" test: it's just a different name for the same language.

by rodw 7y ago

gdy 7y ago

>I think Lua may actually pre-date JS And it does

mumblemumble 7y ago

JScript is misunderstood. It isn't a proprietary JavaScript competitor. It's just Microsoft's implementation of JavaScript. They had to use a different name when talking about it in order to get around trademark issues. There were some differences from Netscape's implementation, but they're pretty minor compared to the dialectical differences between competing implementations of pretty much any other language.

hajile 7y ago
You misunderstand the real evil of JScript. Microsoft made it to be a complete clone of Netscape's implementation. When Netscape decided to standardize the language, they went to ECMA. Microsoft didn't have ECMA completely under their thumb, but did have some control. Netscape wanted to fix some fundamental issues with JS, but MS had just spent a ton of money making their clone, so they insisted all those problematic bits stay right where they were. So, JScript is to blame for most of the bad parts of Javascript and is therefore worthy of all the hate you could possible heap upon it.
- mumblemumble 7y ago
  That's all beside the point. The focus of the discussion was whether JScript could be described as a new language ("you have reinvented...") that's basically Javascript but worse. It can't, because it fails the "new language" test: it's just a different name for the same language.