3 ms·

This was a pretty good interview. Really wish he didn’t create the === implicit equivalence function. And made JavaScript stricter from the beginning.

BrendanEich 6y ago
It's == that has implicit conversion semantics. === was the backward-compatible (because extension into formerly illegal syntax, which is reserved to future versions) operator we added that does no implicit conversions. As I said, in the beginning (Mocha in ten days), == was just as strict if operand types differ: false result. The lesson is to say "no" by default and reflex to RFEs, consider only on repeated request and be willing to find what they truly want that's not a hole in the head ;-). The other sloppiness in JS is `var obj = {prop:42}; obj.prep` where you get undefined instead of a thrown exception (as you would get in Python). That was due to 10 day rush and little time after for core language work leaving 0 time to add try-catch-finally.
- leoh 6y ago
  What was Tabb's contribution to JS?
  - BrendanEich 6y ago
    Do you mean Lloyd Tabb? He was part of a four-person acquihire from Borland. He didn't do anything for JS, but Ken Smith from that team, after the ten days in May, did do the port we all agreed was the right solution: java.util.Date from Java to C. This left us with the same Y2K bugs, 0-based month numbers, and other warts that Java had then. Lloyd suggested `with` after the ten days, also the String.prototype.{anchor,bold,...}() methods, and I added them in the same spirit that I made == sloppy on request from others in the ex-Borland gang of four (Bill Turpin, I think). I should not have agreed to any of these. Lloyd can take credit for them. The String methods are the least offensive but not that useful, now-archaic. Someone (I think jevering) wrote a dishonest Quora answer claiming Lloyd wrote an engine and I used or benefited from his code. That's false. Mitchell Baker, who was a Netscape lawyer at the time, came on Quora along with others from Netscape management to back up my testimony. It's funny people want credit for JS when boosting their resumes (Lloyd did great with Looker and as far as I know doesn't need money), while I get blame still. As I should: again, I'm the idiot who agreed to these Borland-flavored requests: sloppy ==, `with`, HTML helper string methods. My blame and credit, mine! But Lloyd is welcome to a share of the blame if he wants. :-D

BrendanEich 6y ago

It's == that has implicit conversion semantics. === was the backward-compatible (because extension into formerly illegal syntax, which is reserved to future versions) operator we added that does no implicit conversions. As I said, in the beginning (Mocha in ten days), == was just as strict if operand types differ: false result. The lesson is to say "no" by default and reflex to RFEs, consider only on repeated request and be willing to find what they truly want that's not a hole in the head ;-). The other sloppiness in JS is `var obj = {prop:42}; obj.prep` where you get undefined instead of a thrown exception (as you would get in Python). That was due to 10 day rush and little time after for core language work leaving 0 time to add try-catch-finally.

leoh 6y ago
What was Tabb's contribution to JS?
- BrendanEich 6y ago
  Do you mean Lloyd Tabb? He was part of a four-person acquihire from Borland. He didn't do anything for JS, but Ken Smith from that team, after the ten days in May, did do the port we all agreed was the right solution: java.util.Date from Java to C. This left us with the same Y2K bugs, 0-based month numbers, and other warts that Java had then. Lloyd suggested `with` after the ten days, also the String.prototype.{anchor,bold,...}() methods, and I added them in the same spirit that I made == sloppy on request from others in the ex-Borland gang of four (Bill Turpin, I think). I should not have agreed to any of these. Lloyd can take credit for them. The String methods are the least offensive but not that useful, now-archaic. Someone (I think jevering) wrote a dishonest Quora answer claiming Lloyd wrote an engine and I used or benefited from his code. That's false. Mitchell Baker, who was a Netscape lawyer at the time, came on Quora along with others from Netscape management to back up my testimony. It's funny people want credit for JS when boosting their resumes (Lloyd did great with Looker and as far as I know doesn't need money), while I get blame still. As I should: again, I'm the idiot who agreed to these Borland-flavored requests: sloppy ==, `with`, HTML helper string methods. My blame and credit, mine! But Lloyd is welcome to a share of the blame if he wants. :-D