Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn, post: 5165038"] [F'up2 comp.lang.javascript] James Kuyper wrote in comp.lang.c: Please point out the word or paragraph in your posting that contains or refers to C code. If you reasonably cannot, you should reconsider. First one has to define what â€œdynamic programming languageâ€ means. I would, and I have a long time ago. I am not convinced that further editing would be worthwhile. The misconception of a single language appears to be cemented too deeply into the thinking of the general public. Not just this article, all related lemmata on Wikipedia need a clean-up. But I am going to edit it again if and when I find the time. That refers to the fact that you cannot infer from the newsgroup name the spelling of the language (or the topics in the newsgroup, which actually is a standard and several programming languages based on it, along with host- defined APIs like the DOM that are *not* part of any implementation of the standard). I had not expected the ECMAScript Support Matrix to malfunction this way; IIRC it had worked yesterday. I also had not expected that you would not research the newsgroup and the Web more thoroughly before you posted. I prefer to not repeat myself. Have you tried a Web cache yet? If not, why not? The Wikipedia article is wrong there, too. The first Edition of ECMAScript formalized common features of Netscape JavaScript 1.1 (released 1996-08 with Netscape 3.0) and Microsoftâ€™s extended copycat of Netscape JavaScript 1.0 that they called JScript 1.0 (released 1996-08 with Internet Explorer 3.0). The Specification text itself confirms that (any Edition). Which begs the question which â€œJavaScriptâ€ they are talking about. It is instead very likely that they have no clue which language(s) they are talking about. Most people do not know what they are talking about, doubly so on this topic. It would not. ECMAScript is the standard; â€œJavaScriptâ€ is contained in the name of some implementations of it (borrowing from the original). The standard is very lenient, therefore its implementations can and do differ greatly if you know where to look. Of the ECMAScript implementations that I would consider â€œmajorâ€, there are Netscape/Mozilla JavaScript, Google V8 JavaScript and KDE JavaScript that contain the â€œJavaScriptâ€ name standalone. The original JavaScript, of course, is Netscape JavaScript, with Mozilla JavaScript as its open-source free-software successor (at least those parts that are licensed under MPL 2.0 or later). â€œInternet Explorer JavaScriptâ€ is just a Micro$~1 marketing scam; its real name is Microsoft JScript 9+ (codename â€œChakraâ€), supported by MSHTML 9+. There are no versions of ECMAScript. There is the ECMAScript Language Specification, there are Editions of it, and implementations of those. I do not know which syntactic features of which Edition of ECMAScript Emscripten employs, and I suspect code analysis would take long. I am not aware of any differences in the implementation of the â€œ|â€ operator that we discussed here; however, I understand now that the code it generates has little to do with the actual statements that are being executed (like, â€œ|0â€ being just a type marker for asm.js aso.) Insofar there is doubt whether Emscripten/asm.js would be on-topic here in the first place (the same as, e.g., there was resistance discussing CoffeeScript here). Wrong. The used implementation is defined by the runtime environment. [/QUOTE]

Verification