5 ms·
This is a stupid non-issue. You can go ahead and call it JavaScript despite what Oracle does or doesn't say. Better yet, though: don't call it JavaScript—call
by cxr 2y ago
This is a stupid non-issue. You can go ahead and call it JavaScript despite what Oracle does or doesn't say.
Better yet, though: don't call it JavaScript—call it JS. "JavaScript" is and always was a dumb name. "JS" is not only fine, but better—and not because "JS" is particularly good, but because "JavaScript" itself isn't exactly hard to beat.
The only thing left to do is for the spec authors (which includes signatories to this petition) and the rest of TC-39 to say so; the next edition of ECMA-262 should modify the existing disclaimer in the preface about "JavaScript" being an Oracle trademark to state unequivocally that "JavaScript"—an unfortunate vestige of an ill-considered marketing decision in the 1900s—is a deprecated way to refer to the language not otherwise terribly well-known as ECMAScript and that the recommended way to refer to it is simply as "JS".
- sigzero 2y agoThere is nothing better about "JS" over "JavaScript".
- cxr 2y agoWrong, and that's not the question, anyway. There is nothing worse about "JS" over "JavaScript". (Whereas the reverse is not true—there is something worse about "JavaScript" over "JS". Several somethings.)
- johannes1234321 2y ago"JavaSciript" implies it's some scripting language related to Java, which was originally an idea, where it was meant to control Java Applets. But that is not a thing anymore. Thus the name makes no sense. "JS" is just a name only conflicting with my initials.
- layer8 2y agoThe name was exclusively chosen based on marketing considerations, to have it benefit from the Java hype of the time. It was actually called LiveScript before.
- jbverschoor 2y agoThey succeeded though
- bryanrasmussen 2y agobut "JS" implies it is some sort of amalgam of the J and S programming languages - or it doesn't and probably the Java implication doesn't exist anymore either - who really, on hearing the name in a modern context is going to think "hey, it must be a scripting version of that one really old programming language granddad in the office is always reminiscing about"?
- lkirkwood 2y ago... do you think people don't use Java anymore?
- bryanrasmussen 2y agosure they use it, but I sort of feel the groups that use it and JavaScript are no longer likely to cross over each other, and thus new devs will not be making the historical mistake of rhetorical misunderstanding that was made in the old days.
- daymanstep 2y agoFull stack developers often use both Java and JavaScript.
- nailer 2y agoWe can avoid your initials conflicting with anything by abbreviating your name to “JavaScript” now that is available.
- kragen 2y agojavascript is an oracle registered trademark, js isn't
- rz2k 2y agoIt works well as a modifier, and makes it easy to search for projects that are named after other common concepts or objects. It's also easy and natural- sounding to say for English speakers. Compared to other modifiers, it's more like "-dot-com" than "-lang", or even worse "libre-".
- Brian_K_White 2y agoThere are at least 3 things better about JS over JavaScript.
- nailer 2y agoIt’s smaller. The logo already just says JS. It doesn’t boost Java’s reputation. And people in the ecosystem don’t have to worry about oracle threatening them.
- agumonkey 2y agoMakes me wonder if there are rules to use area names for your brands. Can I start Tennesseescript ?
- Eric_WVGG 2y agoIsn't the technical name ECMAScript? What would be really cool is if the community could just rally around the original name, LiveScript… it never had anything to do with Java, let that go…