16 ms·
It’s time to free JavaScript (2024)
- deleted 10mo ago[deleted]
- siwatanejo 10mo agoI actually think that people should rather use EcmaScript name instead of JavaScript, because it's a way better name (much less confusing, given that this lang doesn't have anything to do with Java anyway). I wish Oracle started suing people to force everyone to use the better name.
- phplovesong 10mo agoThat boat sailed soooo many years ago tho. Oracle has no business claiming javascript as a trademark.
- cies 10mo agoOracle is in the business of bullying others using their big legal dept. We all know this. > Oracle has no business claiming javascript as a trademark. You think so. That's okay. But ultimately it is up to a judge to decide. Right? I agree with the EcmaScript. Just ditch the stupid name. Get all the petition signers to agree an move on. Fuck Oracle. Fuck JavaScript (it's nothing like Java anyway).
- mcny 10mo ago> But ultimately it is up to a judge to decide. Right? I think we are getting a rude awakening about what is legal versus what is actually right are not always the same thing. There are some the horrible, horrible things here and the laws need updating, as opposed to us simply saying this is for a judge to decide and there is nothing else we can do. I am ok with ditching the JavaScript name. I understand this cuts the problem entirely. However, there are other problems we have that we can't bypass so easily. We need copyright terms to be much reduced. We need CFAA fully repealed and not replaced by anything. We need to abolish software patents. There is a lot we need to do that will likely take a century to accomplish and that's likely being too optimistic. What we can't do is leave everything up to the judges because clearly even if we get a favorable ruling today, the precedent can be removed by another stroke of a pen.
- embedding-shape 10mo ago> I think we are getting a rude awakening about what is legal versus what is actually right are not always the same thing. I'm not sure who "we" are here (Americans perhaps?), but humanity as a whole have known this for a long time, and acted accordingly. This is why presidents in some countries have the right to pardon people, as just one very evident example. That the USA exists as a country today is another example, which at the time when they were trying to create it, was clearly illegal, but since winners write history, still a "good" action. The the laws aren't 100% unambiguous and strict is also another example, so there is room for interpretation, as something can be "by the book legal" but because of the clear evil motivations and "ignoring the spirit of the law", still be illegal. Of course, highly dependent on the country and lots of counter-examples.
- cies 10mo agoCompletely agree. But that's more of a general matter than this specific matter. Judges is the best we have. US has juries, not sure if that makes it better. More importantly we need to criminalize lobbying in order to get control back over "our democracies" (what ever that still means today).
- eastbound 10mo agoOr let Oracle trial everyone for the number of processors they have on their JavaScript machines.
- andix 10mo agoWhat we use nowadays is actually ECMAScript and not JavaScript. We just call it JavaScript.
- muvlon 10mo agoIf enough people call it JavaScript, it is JavaScript. Yes really. Even in a legal sense (and deno are arguing this is already the case).
- stuartjohnson12 10mo agoApart from anything else, ECMAScript is a mouthful! Eeh-cee-emm-ay-script. Five syllables.
- tietjens 10mo agoDon't most people just pronounce it Eck-ma?
- deleted 10mo ago[deleted]
- mbirth 10mo agoSince the association renamed itself to “Ecma International” in 1994, I believe we can just call it Eck-mah-script.
- mattkevan 10mo agoIt's a genuinely terrible name. Maybe it should just be pronounced eck-ma-script so it's got the same number of syllables as ja-va-script.
- hn_throw2025 10mo agoAnd it sounds like a skin condition.
- biofox 10mo agoFlaky when under pressure? Irritating results? Sites look and feel better without it? Sounds appropriate to me.
- rs186 10mo agoWho are "people"? How would all of this start? In terms of standard, the specs already use "ECMAScript" and don't even mention JavaScript (https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/ https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/), although TC39 website does use it frequently. I guess they could officially recommend people stop using "JavaScript", but I doubt they care. Otherwise, the petitioner Deno here is only a small part of the ecosystem and barely controls anything (and really nobody other than TC39 controls anything, which is good). They (or anyone else) can't just shout "stop saying JavaScript!" and expect people to follow. Not to mention JavaScript is a simple, easy to pronounce word compared to ECMAScript despite the baggage, which is probably why they chose it in the first place. Let's say the "JavaScript" name is officially deprecated somehow. People will continue to use the name for as long as it exists. So Deno's petition tackles these problems, addresses the root cause and appears to be legally viable. That is the "right thing to do" here. Avoiding the name does not solve the problem. It never does.
- embedding-shape 10mo ago> because it's a way better name (much less confusing, given that this lang doesn't have anything to do with Java anyway). Probably if we were in the early 2000s this could have been a battle worth fighting. But considering we're in 2025 and probably more people are aware of JavaScript than Java at this point, even when you're deep in enterprise-land, I'm not sure it'd be less confusing. Anyways, you're about two decades too late to this discussion :/
- heretia 10mo ago> probably more people are aware of JavaScript than Java at this point All the same, I probably get as many calls from recruiters to fill Java positions as I do JS positions. I've never used the former, and explaining it is always awkward!
- master-lincoln 10mo agoI would tell them they are wasting your time by not offering you fitting jobs. It's on them to know what they are looking for, not on you
- GoblinSlayer 10mo agoFor normal people Java is a short way to say JavaScript.
- spider-mario 10mo agoI have never heard anyone do that. Do “normal” people even discuss JavaScript?
- array_key_first 10mo agoI think normal people are actually aware what JS and HTML are. Most people are more tech savvy than we give them credit - or credit they might give themselves.
- pansa2 10mo ago> people should rather use EcmaScript name instead of JavaScript Or go back to calling it “LiveScript”
- DrScientist 10mo agoI'm not changing all the extensions on my files :-) Just go with the flow - call it js.
- nacozarina 10mo agoOur trade has a solid tradition of terrible names for programming languages. They are ALL bad. The whole Ekmuhscrip.js schism fits perfectly. Yes, this is our circus, and these are our monkeys.
- Towaway69 10mo agoBut some of us get to be pretty looking penguins in this circus of ours.
- Octoth0rpe 10mo ago> Yes, this is our circus, and these are our monkeys. In this case, it's Oracle's circus and we are the monkeys.
- falcor84 10mo agoBut everyone already calls it JS. I think the transition would have been so much easier if the official name started with "J".
- dkersten 10mo agoJust rename it to "JS" (jay-ess) and forget about having the letters stand for anything.
- 1bpp 10mo agoWould be nice if Microsoft hadn't taken JScript
- WorldMaker 10mo agoMicrosoft themselves have even suggested the community could take over the name JScript if they want and offered the trademark to community groups.
- leptons 10mo agoOr how about just "J", like "C", and "B" before it.
- dkersten 10mo agoAlready taken https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J_(programming_language) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J_(programming_language)
- petre 10mo agoLike JunoScript or JangoScript? JavaScript is just very outdated ECMAScript.
- discomrobertul8 10mo agosoulJaboy Script
- suyash 10mo agoThe irony is I belive the JavaScript creator wtnted to latch to Java's popularity to called it JavaScript and now both Java and JavaScript are owned by Oracle and they want the name but not want to change is to ECMAScript, it's real official name.
- jemmyw 10mo agoWell the creator wanted to call it livescript. The creating company (Netscape) wanted the Java association.
- embedding-shape 10mo ago> and now both Java and JavaScript are owned by "Now" makes it sound like this is a recent acquisition of the JavaScript trademark. Oracle obtained it in 2009 as a result of the Sun purchase and if I remember correctly, Sun initially was issued the trademark back in the 90s sometimes.
- brabel 10mo agoYou should consider reading the article.
- embedding-shape 10mo agoYou should consider including whatever point you are trying to make in the comment itself, instead of just a swipe without any details.
- brabel 10mo ago> "Now" makes it sound like this is a recent acquisition of the JavaScript trademark. Oracle obtained it in 2009 as a result of the Sun purchase and if I remember correctly, Sun initially was issued the trademark back in the 90s sometimes. They explained that in detail in the article. You don't need to remember correctly, you need to read the article. People who comment like you without doing the bare minimum, i.e. read what they're commenting on, should stop and think, what do you think you're contributing by doing that??
- re-thc 10mo agoSwitch everything natively to Typescript.
- deleted 10mo ago[deleted]
- DrScientist 10mo agoLast phase of embrace, extend, extinguish eh? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguish https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguis...
- solumunus 10mo agoPlease. The name JavaScript makes me cringe. We now have something much better in name and functionality, let’s just kill JS.
- throwingrocks 10mo agoIt’s simply not a better name. If it was, it would’ve caught on by now.
- wouldbecouldbe 10mo agoEcmaScript just sounds icky.
- crazygringo 10mo agoI still cannot read it without immediately seeing a contraction of eczema.
- someguyiguess 10mo agoYes! I said this same thing in a separate comment! It sounds like Eczema Script
- wat10000 10mo agoIt’s unfortunate that it sounds like some sort of skin disease.
- petesergeant 10mo ago> I actually think that people should rather use EcmaScript name instead of JavaScript Take it to Twitter
- someguyiguess 10mo agoEcmaScript is an awful name. It sounds too similar to eczema or ectoplasm. Ugly name.
- spider-mario 10mo agoObligatory: https://james-iry.blogspot.com/2009/05/brief-incomplete-and-mostly-wrong.html https://james-iry.blogspot.com/2009/05/brief-incomplete-and-... > 1995 - Brendan Eich reads up on every mistake ever made in designing a programming language, invents a few more, and creates LiveScript. Later, in an effort to cash in on the popularity of Java the language is renamed JavaScript. Later still, in an effort to cash in on the popularity of skin diseases the language is renamed ECMAScript.
- eurekin 10mo agoThought I was the only one seeing the resemblance (also flegma)
- code_for_monkey 10mo agothe fact that it sounds bad out loud is its undoing
- newsoftheday 10mo agoAgreed. WebScript would be better.
- mr_toad 10mo agoThat’s always been my favorite proposal. WebScript is short and to the point.
- kstrauser 10mo agoNailed it. My brain always hears it as eczema script, which is never a good association.
- godshatter 10mo agoI don't know, I kind of like the name EctoScript. Although if it were me I'd just rename it WebScript and be done with it.
- psychoslave 10mo agoThat’s not retrocompatible with all the .js files out there though. One possibility is thus just make some vocalic derivation, which align with well known spontaneous evolution of languages like ablaut[1]. Following that, and keeping the dance connotation, jive[2] is an option. Or closer on phonetic distance to java (/ˈd͡ʒɑː.və/), there is jovial (/ˈd͡ʒəʊ.vɪ.əl/ or /ˈd͡ʒoʊ.vɪ.əl/ or /ˈd͡ʒoʊ.vəl/)[3]. Might our jovial·script enjoy our life. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_ablaut https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_ablaut [2] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/jive https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/jive [3] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/jovial https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/jovial
- roywiggins 10mo ago.js, short for jecmascript, easy
- GoblinSlayer 10mo agoJabbaScript
- nunobrito 10mo agoWould actually paint a very descriptive state about the ecosystem.
- psychoslave 10mo agoAlso jiva (/ˈd͡ʒiːvə/) is an option. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/jiva https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/jiva https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmO4zvq9HtE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmO4zvq9HtE
- jrm4 10mo agoWhy not Jayscript? I see that there's something called that related to javascript already, but like -- very similar spelling, ".js" still works, we lose the Java confusion etc etc.
- 10mo ago
- giancarlostoro 10mo agoI am going to sound crazy, but, if Microsoft would free up TypeScript and every browser added native TypeScript features to JavaScript… and then we all just started calling it TypeScript. Maybe? Then you would see native ts files. Oracle will never give up JS. The funny thing is the number of people who confuse Java and JS.
- shevy-java 10mo agoFrom experience, corporations usually don't give the general public any trademarked name. I assume TypeScript is trademarked right now; and I doubt Microsoft would ever liberate this. So in this regard, the corporations act in the same manner - selfish.
- Someone1234 10mo agoIf browser makers offered to put it in the browser if the name is freed, I bet they could be convinced. The main problem right now, is that there isn't a major push to add TS to the browser.
- giancarlostoro 10mo agoThe way I'm proposing it, technically it would be to make JS and TS kind of the same thing, but not fully, as someone else mentioned the goal of TS is still to tell the user (developer) about issues before the code runs. However, if done right TS files still get interpreted like normal JS, and technically you would want to compile them and not put them in the browser "raw" but you could still call it TS.
- onionisafruit 10mo agoTFA says Microsoft offered the JScript trademark to be used in place of JavaScript, so there’s some indication of willingness to give up a trademark.
- georgeecollins 10mo agoIf you can find the clip on you tube where he says it, it's even funnier. But sadly also true. https://simonwillison.net https://simonwillison.net
- nextaccountic 10mo agoFilename extension is .js, mime type is text/javascript, millions of people call it javascript. I don't see this changing anytime soon Unrelated but, the JavaScript capitalization is so odd
- rdiddly 10mo agoEverything seemed to be Pascal case back then.
- nunobrito 10mo agoI'm from the java world and it is basically java. Sure that it can do a lot more, for the most part any java developer will fell at home with the exception of lacking a robust static typing and the IDEs aren't really as good to spot syntax errors. I mean no shade to javascript developers, you just get used to a very robust building environment over there.
- dtagames 10mo agoI think most of us just call it JS now. And we really write mostly TS anyway.
- xxs 10mo agothat would be very culturally/industry specific. Personally, I do call it javascript.
- freedomben 10mo agoYeah definitely cultural. IME it's called JS only in chat as a shortcut. IRL people say "javascript"
- halapro 10mo agoNo person calls it EcmaScript. They should just call it Jay Es and be done. "JavaScript" is an ugly name too.
- culi 10mo agoAh yes, "European Computer Manufacturers Association"-script
- elAhmo 10mo agoEcmaScript is a terrible name, there is no way people will call JS that. How do you even pronounce it? What does it mean? What is it?
- Squarex 10mo agoCan they drop javascript trademark without threating Java trademark?
- andix 10mo agoI guess that's the main issue. A lot of open source projects fell into this pit, when they put a related trademark into their name. Naming something OpenFastFirefox or iPhoneScript would cause a lot of trademark issues.
- jamesbelchamber 10mo agoDon't anthropomorphise the lawnmower.
- jeffrallen 10mo agoCame here for this. Was not disappoint.
- messe 10mo agoThe context: > Do not fall into the trap of anthropomorphising Larry Ellison. You need to think of Larry Ellison the way you think of a lawnmower. You don't anthropomorphize your lawnmower, the lawnmower just mows the lawn, you stick your hand in there and it'll chop it off, the end. You don't think 'oh, the lawnmower hates me' -- lawnmower doesn't give a shit about you, lawnmower can't hate you. Don't anthropomorphize the lawnmower. Don't fall into that trap about Oracle. — Brian Cantrill (https://youtu.be/-zRN7XLCRhc?t=33m1s https://youtu.be/-zRN7XLCRhc?t=33m1s)
- wengo314 10mo agoi wish we instead dropped js for something vastly more sane.
- cies 10mo agoAmen to that (will never happen though).
- lionkor 10mo agoLua
- mid90sahsan 10mo agoWhat would that be?
- morshu9001 10mo agoSeriously JS is the best choice for the things it's commonly used for
- Timwi 10mo agoSomething that is designed to be compiled to, so that everyone can use whatever programming language they like.
- deleted 10mo ago[deleted]
- homebrewer 10mo agoImagine if this effort was spent on solving more pressing problems, like the recent yet another security kerfuffle, or the overloaded maintainers whom everyone depends on but reliably fails to support. Call the language JS, everyone already understands it, it's used on all the logos because it's short, we already another popular language with a very compact name (Go, which is harder to look up without mangling its name, and it's still doing fine).
- suyash 10mo agoexactly, just a whole lot of haters got nothing better to do.
- leshenka 10mo ago> Go, which is harder to look up without mangling its name don't get me started on typescript. Until recently I had to use its full name when googling something
- Lerc 10mo ago>Imagine if this effort was spent on solving more pressing problems, Are you suggesting that Ryan Dahl's contribution has been less than satisfactory so far?
- tolerance 10mo agoWhether the JS community can organize to address those issues may in fact depend on the real and social capital that this seemingly auxiliary campaign has the opportunity to effect.
- fhennig 10mo agoSeems sensible to me, Oracle doesn't seem to use the trademark. But also, what are the consequences of Oracle having the trademark, why is this an issue?
- karel-3d 10mo agoThey now have GoFundMe where they are soliciting donations for a discovery phase of a <strike>patent</strike> trademark cancellation request. They have just 50k USD out of 200k USD they are raising. (No idea if that's appropriate; from the outside, it seems like a lot of money, but also they are fighting Oracle which has unlimited money, so, yeah) For some reason it's not linked in the page itself. https://www.gofundme.com/f/help-us-challenge-oracles-javascript-trademark/donate https://www.gofundme.com/f/help-us-challenge-oracles-javascr... https://deno.com/blog/javascript-tm-gofundme https://deno.com/blog/javascript-tm-gofundme
- GaryBluto 10mo ago[flagged]
- mihaic 10mo agoStop spreading defeatism. Either channel these energies into something better, or just get out of the way.
- GaryBluto 10mo ago"Defeatism" is yet another shibboleth for people who refuse to accept reality. Wasting your money on things you can't change when you could be spending it on things you can is true "defeatism", as it accomplishes nothing.
- some_furry 10mo ago[flagged]
- GaryBluto 10mo agoI don't care about most ridiculous "battles" people are trying to wage, let alone this one, I was bluntly saying there are better things to spend money on if you do wish to "win battles". You're allowed to criticize things without offering a solution, especially if you don't care all that much about the topic at hand. As a sidenote, Regarding your comment on my perceived lack of pragmatism, I'd point you to a definition: "dealing with things sensibly and realistically in a way that is based on practical rather than theoretical considerations", which I'd say my comment very much was. Winning against a company that has succeeded in part due to government favouritism isn't realistic. > In which case: maybe take your own advice and give up on changing anyone's mind? I post on HN because it is a public forum and I wished to share my thoughts, not to change people's minds.
- billpg 10mo agoLet's stop calling it "JavaScript" entirely. "JS" is right there.
- sswaner 10mo agoWhile I completely agree with the sentiment, there are 100 million reasons why it will never happen. Having dealt with Oracle for over 20 years, I have seen their predatory relationship with their customers. They will hold onto this trademark in the hope that they can somehow monetize it. At some point they will approach companies, likely tech companies that produce a product or offering that can't be described without using the word "JavaScript". They will offer a "convenient" licensing agreement of $50,000 per year for the use of their trademark. They used this playbook with Java, an easier path because they had something more substantial than a trademark, but the approach will be the same. https://www.reddit.com/r/sysadmin/comments/165kzxg/oraclejava_is_knocking_at_my_companys_door_and/ https://www.reddit.com/r/sysadmin/comments/165kzxg/oraclejav... As Oracle's debt problems mount, the company seems increasingly likely to weaponize this trademark against companies—despite otherwise showing little interest in the word. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/us/will-moodys-and-sp-reclassify-oracles-bonds-as-junk-debt-key-points-investors-need-to-know/articleshow/125462848.cms https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/us/w...
- vee-kay 10mo agoOh, this reminds me of the horror days when Oracle deliberately rolled out spyware (Ask Toolbar) in the JRE (Java Runtime Environment) installer, that corporate admins and developers/testers inadvertently installed on millions of PCs. Oracle never apologised for this sudden hijack (of an executable that was trusted and used by millions of IT people) and malicious behavior (no prior information given by Oracle for this malpractice), if I recall right. I am sure that disaster was a wake up call for many developers and corporations to move away from Java dependency.
- pbiggar 10mo agoImportant to remember Oracle is one of the most evil tech companies, and Larry Ellison is your prototypical evil villain. Oracle CEO Catz recently said "We are not flexible regarding our mission, and our commitment to Israel is second to none" and "if they don't agree with our mission to support the State of Israel, then maybe we aren't the right company for them".
- lionkor 10mo agoAnyone reasonable would agree that Oracle does not even gain anything for their products by holding the trademark. They have zero benefit, except of course occasional bullying.
- intrasight 10mo agoDon't underestimate the benefits of the power of bullying. Just look at the current US administration.
- udev4096 10mo ago[flagged]
- exabrial 10mo agoWhy in 2025 can we not ship a statically typed high performance language for browsers?
- paulryanrogers 10mo agoBecause there is no consensus on what that should be, and vendors have so little motivation they just outsource most browser development to Google.
- pveierland 10mo agoRust runs quite well today via WebAssembly. Continuing to improve interop between Web API / WASM / language runtimes seems like a good route that allows people to use the language they prefer against shared Web APIs.
- afavour 10mo agoBecause every time someone proposes it the immediate follow up is “which language?”, which everyone argues about until they’re exhausted and give up. Which is why WebAssembly is the right answer.
- throw_m239339 10mo ago> Why in 2025 can we not ship a statically typed high performance language for browsers? Which one?
- wouldbecouldbe 10mo agoDevelopers always on their high horse, if after years of trying different options it didnt happen, maybe that means it's not what the world wants or need?
- morshu9001 10mo agoI don't want static typing in a web language. This is something people getting dragged from Java and C++ want. JS and Py got popular without it. Also there's TS if you really want it
- 10mo ago
- Stevvo 10mo ago"If you do not act, we will challenge your ownership by filing a petition for cancellation with the USPTO." So, just go ahead and do it already. Your cute letter isn't going to change anything.
- crazygringo 10mo agoThey already did, a year ago: https://deno.com/blog/deno-v-oracle https://deno.com/blog/deno-v-oracle This post is more than a year old.
- analogears 10mo agoSpeaking of JavaScript's evolution - I've been building a music player (muz11.com) and it's remarkable how far we've come. The Web Audio API, MediaSession for lock screen controls, smooth animations via requestAnimationFrame... all running client-side with no framework, just vanilla JS. Thirty years ago this would have required a desktop app and probably a record label deal. The irony is that 'freeing' JavaScript from Oracle's trademark might matter less than freeing ourselves from the framework churn. The platform itself is incredibly capable now.
- jacquesm 10mo ago> Thirty years ago this would have required a desktop app and probably a record label deal. And that would have been just fine.
- someguyiguess 10mo agoUntil you have to pay back your advance to the record label.
- avsteele 10mo agoWhy is this worth doing? What wrong with the status quo? The author does not give any examples of Oracle threatening people for using the JavaScript (tm) name.
- tobr 10mo agoThey have linked to an example from one of the blog posts: https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/14vnipl/rust_for_javascript_developers_ltd_received_a/ https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/14vnipl/rust_f...
- tonkinai 10mo agoThe example is indeed two years old. I also couldn't find any point in the article that explains why this is worth doing.
- serial_dev 10mo agoBut it's a valid example, isn't it? Someone just wanted to share their Rust + JavaScript knowledge with people, and they got a cease and desist. It's clearly not ideal.
- tantalor 10mo agoGiven they did not change the name, it suggests the legal challenge had failed. So why do we care?
- morshu9001 10mo agoLegal risk alone discourages people. But also, I don't really care.
- Vinnl 10mo agoI think it's mostly a marketing play by Deno.
- throw_m239339 10mo agoOfficial name is ECMAScript. Maybe it's time to drop "Javascript".
- rpodraza 10mo agoI'd rather start a completely new, better language for the browser.
- marcelr 10mo ago:o has anyone thought of this before? /s
- Alifatisk 10mo agoLike Dart and the Dartium browser
- vips7L 10mo agoI'm sad every day that Dart didn't get bigger than it is. It's really a great language. Compiles to AOT too.
- Alifatisk 10mo agoI know, it's underrated but it is what it is. I still continue using it.
- morshu9001 10mo agoDart looks ok, but looking at the Dart equivalents of JS examples like {foo: 1}, I'd rather use JS
- Alifatisk 10mo agoThere is sadly no equivalent to {foo: 1} in Dart. This difference stems from Darts class based object model while JSs is, as you probably know, prototype based
- morshu9001 10mo agoThat's my issue with this, I like the prototype system. It's very convenient for this kind of use case.
- philipwhiuk 10mo agoThis is pointless. Oracle is not a democracy, it's a lawnmower.
- 9rx 10mo agoWell, it's not up to Oracle. It is up to the US government (USPTO). Which you could make a strong case for also not being a democracy and rather a lawnmower... But I digress.
- someguyiguess 10mo ago“I die,” grass
- davidhaymond 10mo agoThis made me smile way more than it should. Thanks.
- philipwhiuk 10mo agoThe article is presented as a pitch to Oracle not the USPTO.
- wiseowise 10mo ago1) Put JS in maintenance mode, don’t add any language features, only runtime 2) TS becomes the official mainline, whoever doesn’t like types can just keep writing as they did before, because valid JS is valid TS Problem solved, it’s not that difficult.
- cardanome 10mo agoTS trademark is owned by Microsoft. That would be a case of out of the frying pan into the fire. Not really better.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 10mo agoCall it ES2026 officially and let other people devalue MS' trademark as they refer to that (and later versions) as TS.
- bayindirh 10mo ago...and we'll have another API warfa^H^H^H^H lawsuit that we had for Java.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 10mo agoWasn't that a copyright issue? I thought the point of contention is that Google allegedly copied Oracle's API design when they re-wrote Java for Android.
- bayindirh 10mo agoWouldn't Microsoft do the same thing when somebody copies the language and names it "TypedWebBrowserScriptbutFree"?
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 10mo agohttps://github.com/microsoft/TypeScript/blob/main/LICENSE.txt https://github.com/microsoft/TypeScript/blob/main/LICENSE.tx... The license is Apache 2.0. With the trademark, they can tell everyone not to call their thing TypeScript but at this point, given the license, they can't tell them not to copy it and change it and distribute that new thing (assuming the new distributors do so under the correct conditions).
- donatj 10mo agoI've said it before, I'll say it again. We should just stop using the term JavaScript. It's a bad choice of name and always has been. It's caused way too much confusion over the years making people wrongly associate it with Java. My guess would be that associations exactly why Oracle doesn't want to give it up. I would like to say go back to the original name of LiveScript from before Netscape tried to woo Sun, but the name LiveScript has been co-opted. Something else with a J would probably be the least painful. JScript is permanently associated with Microsoft's terrible IE implementation. I offer up "JaScript" as it sounds largely like JavaScript but said with a drawl while retaining "JS". Heck, I'll call it ECMAScript if that's what it takes. I'd rather not, but it's better than "JavaScript"
- crazygringo 10mo agoShould have [2024]. The "postmark" says Sep 16, 2024. And the list of updates at the top says they've since filed a petition to dismiss the trademark, and Oracle has filed to dismiss the petition.
- rokob 10mo agoI think it is posted because of the update on Dec 2nd 2025 where Oracle responded with a request to dismiss. Edit: I read that date shockingly wrong, their response was February of 2025 so this is pretty old.
- deleted 10mo ago[deleted]
- qingcharles 10mo agoThe petition was partially dismissed and Deno was given leave to amend their petition (but no amended petition has yet been filed, that I can see). There was some initial worthless discovery and now a protective order has been granted allowing Oracle to file information they don't want out in public (e.g. trade secrets). That was at the beginning of November 2025 and the case is ongoing. https://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=92086835&pty=CAN&eno=18 https://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=92086835&pty=CAN&eno...
- 1vuio0pswjnm7 10mo agoActual title: "Oracle, It's time to free Javascript"
- T3RMINATED 10mo ago[dead]
- rc1 10mo agoThe Oracle Org Chart by Manu Cornet springs to mind reading this: https://www.globalnerdy.com/2011/07/03/org-charts-of-the-big-tech-companies-plus-an-enhancement/oracle-org-chart-manu-cornet/ https://www.globalnerdy.com/2011/07/03/org-charts-of-the-big...
- shevy-java 10mo agoIt may have been a mistake to specify a name that can be trademarked in the first place.
- cal85 10mo agoThey thought of that and called the spec ECMAScript instead.
- tolerance 10mo agoDoes anyone think they actually sent them a letter? Which has the greatest likelihood of being read by capable eyes? The letter or the web page?
- pjmlp 10mo agoThis looks to me that Deno folks are out of business options and decided to create a distraction instead, of selling us why to use Deno instead of nodejs.
- trashburger 10mo agoI wish JavaScript stopped being an abandoned trademark. monkey paw's finger starts curling
- mberning 10mo agoVery quaint that they think they can make some legal argument against Oracle
- ridethelightnin 10mo agoThis has so many unintended consequences for LLM over the next four years I would think. "JavaScript" tokenizes to 2 tokens (BPE). "ECMAScript" tokenizes to 3. No biggie here. But the real cost isn't training—it's inference. Every time an LLM has to reconcile "ES6" with "JavaScript," explain the naming, or reason through "user said JavaScript but docs say ECMAScript"— Hidden chain-of-thought overhead. Clarification tokens. Back of envelope: ~376M JS-related LLM queries/day globally. ~30% trigger some clarification overhead. That's ~5B extra tokens/day, ~1.85T tokens/year. At ~0.000025 kWh/token inference cost, that's ~46 GWh/year. ~23,000 tonnes CO2 annually. ~200,000 tonnes over 4 years, based on rough growth of LLM use, and terms sticking around on both names over 4 years - probably wrong here too. Sources Token counts: OpenAI tiktoken cl100k_base encoder 2.5B ChatGPT queries/day: Sam Altman, July 2025 [1] ~4.7B total LLM interactions/day: aggregated from ChatGPT + Gemini (2B monthly AI Overviews users) + Copilot + Claude + others [2][3] JS = 62% of developers: Stack Overflow 2024 Survey [4] 8% of queries JS-related: my estimate based on language prevalence 30% clarification rate: my estimate - probably way off Energy/token: ~0.000025 kWh blended from Luccioni et al. and Patterson et al. inference estimates [5] CO2: 0.5 kg/kWh global grid average [1] techcrunch.com/2025/07/21/chatgpt-users-send-2-5-billion-prompts-a-day [2] demandsage.com/chatgpt-statistics [3] sqmagazine.co.uk/chatgpt-vs-google-gemini-statistics [4] survey.stackoverflow.co/2024 [5] arxiv.org/pdf/2211.02001 (BLOOM carbon footprint paper)
- alberth 10mo agoSilly question: how are people negatively impacted by the trademark of "JavaScript"? Because in practice, isn't this a bit like "Kleenex" - where everyone knows you mean "tissue" (EMCAScript).
- StableAlkyne 10mo agoIt's less the fact that someone owns JS's trademark, and more that it's specifically Oracle (they got it when they bought Sun). Oracle is an incredibly litigious company. Their awful reputation in this respect means that the JS ecosystem can never be sure they won't swoop in and attempt to demand rent someday. This is made worse by the army of lawyers they employ; even if they're completely in the wrong, whatever project they go after probably won't be able to afford a defense.
- onion2k 10mo agoAssuming Oracle did decide to go down that route, who would they sue? No one really uses the JavaScript name in anything official except for "JavaScriptCore" that Apple ships with Webkit.
- Orygin 10mo agoAfaik they already sued Deno: https://deno.com/blog/deno-v-oracle2 https://deno.com/blog/deno-v-oracle2 Edit: Seems I'm incorrect, see below
- saghm 10mo agoI had no idea this was a thing! I'm surprised this didn't attract more attention.
- Orygin 10mo agoMy bad, after reading more it seems Deno is trying to get Oracle's trademark revoked, but I found out that "Rust for Javascript" devs have received a cease and desist from Oracle regarding the JS trademark, which may have triggered Deno to go after Oracle.
- singularity2001 10mo agoIt's time for browsers to just consume typescript
- RexFactorem 10mo ago[dead]
- anthk 10mo agoRename it as "Jotascript". (Jot-a-script). Or just JotScript.
- deleted 10mo ago[deleted]
- theanonymousone 10mo agoJust call it JS and make the trademark forgotten.
- _fat_santa 10mo agoHonest question for companies like Oracle, Google and Microsoft that own the trademark to Javascript, Go and Typescript respectively. What value does it bring to these companies to own these trademarks? The only case I can really see is someone going off and creating another language and then proceeding to call it, Javascript, Typscript or Go and then using the same logo but I feel at that point the developer community would be pretty effective in sorting that out without getting lawyers involved.
- saghm 10mo agoBased on the link someone put in a different comment about them suing Deno, at least in Oracle's case the answer is presumably "being able to sue people and get money from them". Even if that weren't the case though, I think part of the problem is that even if the trademarks literally never brings any value, it also potentially costs them nothing to retain them (unless someone tries to get it invalidated, at which point there's some cost to trying to defend it). Arguably the cost to establish in the trademark in the first place is also low enough that companies at that scale don't have much incentive notto establish them in the first piece; they already have lawyers and trademarking things isn't really out of the ordinary for them, so the marginal cost of having them file one more isn't very high. It's worth considering whether the point you make about there not being much of a realistic concern around someone else attempting to copy the name is something that would be obvious to non-developers. Sometimes what might be obvious to a developer might not be obvious to a lawyer, and at the end of the day, the legal team is probably in charge of deciding things like this at these companies, so in the absence of pressure from someone who understands this point enough influence to make it happen (like maybe a C-level exec), it might not matter that the concern is realistic if it's theoretically plausible.
- pak9rabid 10mo agoWell, look at how Microsoft tried to hijack the JVM back in the 90s. I think the big fear is that somebody creates a "mostly compatible" product, that in fact isn't 100% compatible, and tries to market it as the same thing as the original, which in fact isn't the original.
- collinmanderson 10mo agoThe last time this was brought up, "WebScript" was mentioned as a possible alternative name. (Like WebAssembly, WebSockets, WebRTC, etc.) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45297066 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45297066
- metalliqaz 10mo agoWebScript seems like it would really work. Especially if it was introduced at the same time as a major update to the ECMAscript spec
- Anarch157a 10mo agoMy personal favourite is "JayScript".
- DonHopkins 10mo agoDoobieScript
- Natfan 10mo agonot JScript[0]? or a script written in J[1]? --- [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JScript https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JScript [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J_(programming_language) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J_(programming_language)
- JeremyJaydan 10mo agoI recommend this one
- collinmanderson 10mo agoI like it. JSON’s father.
- fuddle 10mo agoWebScript sounds pretty good TBH
- ddtaylor 10mo ago
- john6 10mo agojavascripts a silly Name
- mold_aid 10mo agoOK we'll change it then. Hello, CliffRichardScript
- deleted 10mo ago[deleted]
- 123sereusername 10mo ago[dead]
- 123sereusername 10mo ago[dead]
- moritzwarhier 10mo agoDeno is very good at marketing: they also have a nice page about the history of JS. But just like with this JS trademark thing, it feels like they present themselves as spokespeople and spearhead for the whole JS community, which feels kind of misleading and grandiose. The mentioned timeline site (link below) also has this issue: it slowly shifts focus from things like the first JS version, the creation of XMLHttpRequest, to later focusing on Deno milestones, as if these events would have had comparable impacts: https://deno.com/blog/history-of-javascript https://deno.com/blog/history-of-javascript And that seems kind of dishonest and designed to nudge outsiders towards thinking Deno would be the default server runtime now, which doesn't seem to be true.
- animanoir 10mo ago[dead]
- sjtgraham 10mo agoThis is a very weak letter. Oracle is using the mark in commerce, and the 2019 specimen is presumed valid unless affirmatively disproven. The fact that Oracle doesn’t charge licensing fees for use of the name is irrelevant. Calling something JavaScript ‘JavaScript’ is nominative use, and any attempt by Oracle to enforce against such truthful descriptive use would fail under nominative fair use.
- deleted 10mo ago[deleted]
- jamesgill 10mo agoIt's time to rename JavaScript.
- kazinator 10mo agoMaybe it's also time to find a better alternative, untrademarked name than Eczema Script.
- darepublic 10mo agothe og lang should have been named coffeescript. Then the coffeescript in our universe could have been named javascript, until better tooling and improvements to the coffeescript spec became implemented by popular browsers.
- martini333 10mo agoHere we go again
- ddtaylor 10mo ago$43k of $200k.
- ChuckMcM 10mo agoRandom nerd note: The history is slightly wrong. Netscape had their own "interactive script" language at the time Sun started talking about Java and somehow got the front page of the Mercury news when they announced it in March of 1995. At the Third International World Wide Web Conference in Darmstadt Germany everyone was talking about it and I was roped into giving a session on it during lunch break (which then had to be stopped because no one was going to the keynote by SGI :-)). Everyone one there was excited and saying "forget everything, this is the future." So, Netscape wanted to incorporate it into Netscape Navigator (their browser) but they had a small problem which was that this was kind of a competitor to their own scripting language. They wanted to call it JavaScript to ride the coattails of the Java excitement and Sun legal only agreed to let them do that if they would promise to ship Java in their browser when it hit 1.0 (which it did in September of that year). So Netscape got visibility for their language, Sun got the #1 browser to ship their language and they had leverage over Microsoft to extortionately license it for Internet Explorer. There were debates among the Java team about whether or not this was a "good" thing or not, I mean for Sun sure, but the confusion between what was "Java" was not. The politics won of course, and when they refused to let the standards organization use the name "JavaScript" the term ECMAScript was created. So there's that. But how we got here isn't particularly germane to the argument that yes, we should all be able to call it the same thing.
- mixmastamyk 10mo agoWas the "interactive script" LiveScript or something else? --- Edit: The above makes it sound like there was another scripting language: > they had a small problem which was that this was kind of a competitor to their own scripting language.
- sinatra 10mo agoLet’s call it JoyScript so it still shortens to JS. And so at least the name as some joy in it even if the language doesn’t.
- breakingrules3 10mo ago[dead]
- huflungdung 10mo ago[dead]
- drnick1 10mo agoHow about we stop using Javascript completely or greatly limit its usage. It's time to go back to simple webpages that load instantly on modern hardware and that do not leak information about the user. JS makes it way, way too easy to track people on the Internet as it is.
- deleted 10mo ago[deleted]
- nrhrjrjrjtntbt 10mo agoLets all call it ECMAScript instead.
- permo-w 10mo agohonourable of an idea as this is: "When its use has been discontinued with intent not to resume such us" you will never ever be able to prove no intent to resume and as such the entire effort is beyond pointless
- rurban 10mo agoI'd throw in BaliScript. Bali is a lot more popular than Java