5 ms·

> (… as ES4 needed to die.) Why is that by the way? From what I read at the time in the PDFs it seemed nice and not out of the ordinary. Did you ever wrote abo

> (… as ES4 needed to die.) Why is that by the way? From what I read at the time in the PDFs it seemed nice and not out of the ordinary. Did you ever wrote about technical failures of ES4 and I missed it?

BrendanEich 12y ago
From twitter (https://twitter.com/BrendanEich/status/575427109977378816 https://twitter.com/BrendanEich/status/575427109977378816): * why ES4 had to die? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8906807 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8906807 says why in brief: "But ES4 was trying for too much too soon." Adobe bailed, too. * (yet MS was about to give in! If only Adobe had known.) ES4 toward end was not AS3-compatible because JS wasn't AS3 compatible. * enabling incompatibilities under opt-in version selection was fairly toxic to all implementors (V8, JSC esp. ) and many users. * With 1JS idea, based on modules (classes, also generators via function*), new syntax is its own opt-in: no big red mode switch. Update: also the "ECMAScript Harmony" email I wrote in July 2008 talks about the problem of namespaces: https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2008-August/006837.html https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2008-August/00... The early binding problem for the Web with multiple script tags was not an issue for Flash with a single SWF link-time tooled image. The open namespaces costs can be thought of as a third lookup rib for identifiers beyond scope chain and prototype chain -- anything like this (e.g., scoped object extensions a la C#) is still bouncing off of engine implementors.