Subj : Re: ECMAScript standards committee
To   : netscape.public.mozilla.jseng
From : =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Georg_Maa=DF?=
Date : Sun Oct 10 2004 07:49 pm

Shanti Rao wrote:
> 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.

The language from 1999 is no longer the same as today. And "bugs are the 
motivation for tomorrow". We live from bugs, because they make our 
customers not to lay down in satisfaction but to stand up and order the 
next update.

JavaScript 1.5 from 1999 wasn't less stable than JavaScript 1.5 is 
today. It just was different.

> I disagree. This is where many newcomers to C++ get confused and make 
> mistakes.

There is no reason for confusion, because a newbe won't use stuff he 
doesn't know. Auto casts are much more confusing (causing unexpected 
behaviours) than multiple equal named functions with simply using 
different parameters.

> It's also a big problem with porting code between compilers if 
> you allow typecasting.

No it is not, because JS 2.0 supports versioning, which enables a 
compiler to detect whether it supports that version or not before 
starting compilation. You can not compile JS 1.5 sources with a JS 1.0 
compiler. You also must not compile JS 2.0 with a JS 1.x compiler.

> Local scopes seem nice, but case-dependent reserved words would make it 
> very difficult to learn to read JS code.

What do you mean with "case dependent reserved words"? Where do we have 
those? We does JS 2.0 suggest them?


-- 
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

.