Subj : Re: ECMAScript standards committee
To   : netscape.public.mozilla.jseng
From : Shanti Rao
Date : Sat Oct 09 2004 12:37 pm

Georg Maaß wrote:
> Why should JavaScript 2.0 less stable than JavaScript 1.5?

Did you notice now long JS1.5 was under development? JSVERSION_1_5 got added 
in Sept 1999. Five years later, there are still a few bugs. I concede that a 
complete redesign might help, but I'm not the expert on that.

Of course, it's all up to the people who write JS2.0, which doesn't include 
me, since I'm not very good at writing compilers.

> The most important conceptional flaw of JavaScript 2.0 is not to 
> implement overloading nor implementing multiple equal named functions 
> with different parametrization.

I disagree. This is where many newcomers to C++ get confused and make 
mistakes. It's also a big problem with porting code between compilers if you 
allow typecasting.

> There should be also a more localy scoped variable declaration (e.g. 
> written Var instead of var) to allow variable hiding like known from C 
> and C++

Local scopes seem nice, but case-dependent reserved words would make it very 
difficult to learn to read JS code. Perl uses the "my" word to do this.

Shanti

.