Subj : Re: ECMAScript standards committee
To   : netscape.public.mozilla.jseng
From : =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Georg_Maa=DF?=
Date : Fri Oct 08 2004 04:08 pm

zwetan wrote:
> 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.).

If we do not get the class based mechanism additionally to the prototype 
based mechanism, then we will indeed lose against C#. With JS 2.0 we 
should get it additionally not as replacement. And we need it very soon, 
because with JScript.NET there is a concurring implementation. JS 2.0 
must become the leader for ECMA-262-4, which still does not exist as 
standard but only as expired draft.

I'm not afraid in class based object mechanisms. I want to get both 
mechanisms in one language, because each has it's own advantages. I want 
all of them.

> - We love ECMAScript, we are concerned with ECMA-262 backward compatibility
> after the ECMAScript standard evolve to its 4th edition

I don't see such a problme, because Waldemars draft specifies 1.5 
behaviour as default, so no backward incompatibilities to existing JS 
1.5 code should occur.

>, 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.

Being able to pick the bet fitting mechanism for each problem make a 
language very sexy. The richness of language features is, what makes C++ 
to sexy and Java so poor. To bring JavaScript back to the top, we need 
more language features like adding class mechanisms. We need JS2.0. And 
we should get it as soon as possible.

> of a JScript.NET vs JavaScript 2.0 war...

JScript.NET allways humbles. VisualStudio.NET does not support anything 
well than C#.

-- 
Georg Maaß   -   bioshop.de    D-76227 Karlsruhe, Westmarkstraße 82
HTML, XML / JavaScript, C++, Java, PHP, VB / CGI, JSP, ASP, ASP.net
   - The ultimate DHTML engine: http://gml-modul.sourceforge.net -
                        http://sourceforge.net/projects/gml-modul

.