FAQ Topic - Internationalisation and Multinationalisation in javascript. (2010-03-23)

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
Eric Bednarz wrote:
Netscape Navigator 2.0, the first Web browser to support client-side
scripting, which was _JavaScript_ 1.0, was released in 1996-03.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ViolaWWW
Well, I for one am glad that Mosaic and ultimately JavaScript
prevailed
Would we have been better off with Javascript[1] or should it have
remained mostly Scheme?

Mu.

According to everything that I have read, Brendan Eich was going to
implement Scheme in the browser.

http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roadmap/archives/2008/04/popularity.html

Although Scheme was never actually used as the browser scripting
language, it was considered as an option.

You misunderstand. Brendan Eich tells there that he “was recruited to
Netscape with the promise of ‘doing Scheme’ in the browserâ€. But he also
says that “whether that language should be Scheme was an open questionâ€.
And then “The /diktat/ from upper engineering management was that the
language must ‘look like Java’. That ruled out Perl, Python, and Tcl, along
with Scheme.â€

Although I can't find the origin of the quote, JavaScript has been called
"Scheme in C's clothing."

“Lisp in C's clothing†can be found on Crockford's site -- “JavaScript: The
World's Most Misunderstood Programming Languageâ€:

Hence, I'll rephrase my question: "Would we have been better off had
Scheme been implemented as the Netscape scripting language, instead of
Live Script?"

I do not think so. (And it is still _LiveScript_, but I know about your
disability now and try to remember that.)

[1] Though I really think it should have retained its name as
Livescript (or was that Live script?)

_LiveScript_ (can't you read?).

Considering that I am dyslexic, I believe that I read fairly well.
Remembering where non-standard capitalization goes, however, falls under
a different category entirely. You, of all people, surprise me in
confusing the ability to read with the ability to remember.

Sheesh, you cannot remember what you have read two postings, less than 6
hours ago, in the *same* thread?


PointedEars

 

[Jeremy J Starcher]

Jeremy J Starcher wrote:
You misunderstand. Brendan Eich tells there that he “was recruited to
Netscape with the promise of ‘doing Scheme’ in the browserâ€. But he
also says that “whether that language should be Scheme was an open
questionâ€. And then “The /diktat/ from upper engineering management was
that the language must ‘look like Java’. That ruled out Perl, Python,
and Tcl, along with Scheme.â€

Perhaps I have misunderstood that. I have interpreted that as a 'bait-
and-switch' so that Eich believed it would be doing Scheme in the
browser, then once he was on board the /diktat/ came down that it had
'look like Java'.


(I won't even try to pretend that history Crockford presents is cannon,
but he does indicate that the 'must look like Java' came after the powers
that be saw Scheme syntax.)

I recently read 'Speeding the Net' but it had very little do say about
the browser's scripting language.

http://www.amazon.com/Speeding-Net-Netscape-Challenged-Microsoft/
dp/0871137097

“Lisp in C's clothing†can be found on Crockford's site -- “JavaScript:
The World's Most Misunderstood Programming Languageâ€:

<http://javascript.crockford.com/javascript.html>

Ah... that is it. Thank you.

 

[John G Harris]

John G Harris wrote:


"ECMAScript implementations"

'ECMAScript implementations' is not suitable for two reasons.

First, 'ECMAScript implementation' means a compiler, not the language
that it acts on. To see this, consider the words in section 6 of the ES3
& ES5 standards :
"Conforming ECMAScript implementations are not required to perform
any normalisation of text" ...

A language cannot translate source text, even where translation is
permitted.

Second, it becomes difficult to talk about the code constructs specified
in the standard if you make 'ECMAScript' include things not described in
the standard.

You need to propose a better term than that.

John

 

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

You want to mark omissions when quoting so as not to give a false impression
of the quoted text.

'ECMAScript implementations' is not suitable for two reasons.

First, 'ECMAScript implementation' means a compiler,

Not necessarily.

not the language that it acts on.
Wrong.

To see this, consider the words in section 6 of the ES3
& ES5 standards :
"Conforming ECMAScript implementations are not required to perform
any normalisation of text" ...

The term appears to have adopted or always had a broader meaning, as you can
readily see when visiting the implementors' Web sites.

You need to propose a better term than that.

I don't think so.


PointedEars

 

[John G Harris]

You want to mark omissions when quoting so as not to give a false impression
of the quoted text.

You must be desperate for something to complain about.

Not necessarily.

Here's a quote from a normative section of ECMA 262 :

"Conforming ECMAScript implementations are not required to perform any
normalisation of text," ...

It's typical of the use of the term ECMAScript implementation in the
standard. I challenge you to find an unambiguous example of contrary use
in the standard.

And here's a quote from the Wikipedia article on ECMAScript :

"Note that there is a distinction between a dialect and an
implementation. A dialect of a language is significant variation of the
language, while an implementation of a language/dialect executes a
program written in that dialect."

The author has come to the same conclusion.

Wrong.

Look up 'implement' in a dictionary.

The term appears to have adopted or always had a broader meaning, as you can
readily see when visiting the implementors' Web sites.

It's the meaning in the standard that matters, not marketing-speak. Are
you subscribing to the VK/Jorge theory of specification reading ?

I don't think so.

I do think so.

John

 

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

You must be desperate for something to complain about.

You must be stupid or a troll not to quote properly despite being notified.

Here's a quote from a normative section of ECMA 262 :

"Conforming ECMAScript implementations are not required to perform any
normalisation of text," ...
Irrelevant.

It's typical of the use of the term ECMAScript implementation in the
standard. I challenge you to find an unambiguous example of contrary use
in the standard.

Red herring.

And here's a quote from the Wikipedia article on ECMAScript :

"Note that there is a distinction between a dialect and an
implementation. A dialect of a language is significant variation of the
language, while an implementation of a language/dialect executes a
program written in that dialect."

The author has come to the same conclusion.

Even Wikipedia can be wrong. In fact, as can be expected, Wikipedia is more
often wrong in with regard to ECMAScript and its implementations than
elsewhere. I would be not surprised if the author was Garrett Smith, who
started this "dialect" nonsense here, IIRC.

Look up 'implement' in a dictionary.

Look it up yourself.

It's the meaning in the standard that matters, not marketing-speak.

It is not "marketing speak". It is a matter of fact in computer programming
(which you would know had you any considerable experience in the field) that
the name of a programming language designates both the syntactical and
semantical rules of that programming language and the program that is able
to implement them so that the result is an executable program. It is
therefore appropriate to speak of a language itself as an implementation of
a language standard.

Are you subscribing to the VK/Jorge theory of specification reading ?

I do not know their theory, therefore no.


PointedEars

 

[John G Harris]

You must be stupid or a troll not to quote properly despite being notified.

To save you the embarrassment of you having to give a grovelling
apology, here is the text that you omitted from your article of 25 May
2010, 12:28:12, which you omitted without any marking at all :-

On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 at 10:17:59, in comp.lang.javascript, VK wrote:


<snip>

You haven't been paying attention.

<end omitted text>

I won't speculate on whether you are stupid or a troll, but I do wonder
where you thought anyone had been notified. (It's not in RFC 1855).

Red herring.

So you say the standard is irrelevant and a red herring in this news
group.

Even Wikipedia can be wrong. In fact, as can be expected, Wikipedia is more
often wrong in with regard to ECMAScript and its implementations than
elsewhere. I would be not surprised if the author was Garrett Smith, who
started this "dialect" nonsense here, IIRC.


Look it up yourself.

"implement verb
to put a plan or system into operation"
[Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary, online]

It is not "marketing speak". It is a matter of fact in computer programming
(which you would know had you any considerable experience in the field) that
the name of a programming language designates both the syntactical and
semantical rules of that programming language and the program that is able
to implement them so that the result is an executable program. It is
therefore appropriate to speak of a language itself as an implementation of
a language standard.

That may be true in German but it is not true in the English-speaking
countries.

You obviously didn't know that standards bodies are very reluctant to
use the word Compiler because some people loudly object that the
'Compiler' does only part of the work. That's why 'the implementation'
is used instead, see many examples in the C++ and C# standards.

As an example of what people with considerable experience in the field
put into a standard here is an extract from section 4, Definitions, in
ECMA-334, the C# standard :

"Implementation - particular set of software (running in a particular
translation environment under particular control options) that performs
translation of programs for, and supports execution of methods in, a
particular execution environment."


<snip>

John

 

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

That may be true in German but it is not true in the English-speaking
countries.

You obviously didn't know that standards bodies are very reluctant to
use the word Compiler because some people loudly object that the
'Compiler' does only part of the work. That's why 'the implementation'
is used instead, see many examples in the C++ and C# standards.

I can only repeat: You have no clue what you are talking about. A
programming language standard is _not_ to be understood only as a
compiler specification.


EOD

PointedEars

 

[John G Harris]

I can only repeat: You have no clue what you are talking about.

Be careful. You're going to run out of rude words soon. Then what will
you do ?

A
programming language standard is _not_ to be understood only as a
compiler specification.

A very disconnected thought : no-one said it was.

EOD

End Of Discussion, indeed. You have failed to justify your case.

I win.

John