Subj : Re: ECMAScript standards committee
To   : netscape.public.mozilla.jseng
From : zwetan
Date : Thu Oct 07 2004 05:46 pm

hello,

>
> Mozilla is a not-for-profit member of ECMA, and I'm the TG1 member now,
> having attended the last face-to-face meeting, and scheduled to go to
> Redmond at the end of this month.  Did my name get left off some list?
>

about the futur of ECMAScript is it possible to send a developpers petition
or wishlist or some other documents to some people at the TG ?

a lot of people I know and me included are very concerned with the evolution
of ECMA-262

here some excerpt:

- class-based syntax (JS2.0) for a prototype-based language by nature feel
wrong to us in concept,
  and in comparing JScript.NET with C# most of the developpers I know would
directly go
  with C# for class-based programming.
  We feel that to support class-based syntax and strong typing make us lose
   a lot of power on the prototype-based side (delegation, closer to the
object, etc.).

- we are also afraid that ECMAScript evolving to class-based even as an ECMA
standard 4th edition
  will not stand up in front of C# which is also an ECMA standard
(ECMA-334).
  Why not keep a versatile prototype based ECMAScript standard and perharps
try to improve it
  and let the class-based standard to C# ?

- We love ECMAScript, we are concerned with ECMA-262 backward compatibility
after the ECMAScript standard evolve to its 4th edition, we are aslo afraid
that to have class-based will please a lot seasoned developpers but will
also block or discourage others and will deserve ECMAScript mass adoption.

sorry, to use that argument :) but here:
http://wp.netscape.com/columns/techvision/innovators_be.html

"There were people who argued strongly that Java's fine for programmers who
build components, but there's a much larger audience of people who write
scripts or maybe copy a script from somebody else and tweak it. These people
are less specialized and may be paid to do something other than programming,
like administer a network, and they write scripts part-time or on the side.
If they're writing small pieces of code, they just want to get their code
done with the minimal amount of fuss. Finally, we agreed that this new
language should look like Java, but be a scripting language."

we think that indeed ECMAScript should stay a scripting language.

- and perharps a paradoxal argument but we also love E4X recent standard,
  to be able to use XML as un object litteral is simply genious :)
  and so we would prefer more E4X-like ECMAScript evolution than a
class-based ECMAScript 4th edition.


sorry to have been so verbose, but lot of people here are anxious about
ECMAScript futur.
We have already been trough the browser and DOM war, we can not imagine the
nightmare
of a JScript.NET vs JavaScript 2.0 war...

zwetan

.