Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Oracle, it's time to free JavaScript

javascript.tm

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 135 posts

Re: Oracle, it's time to free JavaScript

#51

Post by williamstein »

criticalfault wrote: post #40

> JavaScript is the world’s most popular programming language Is this really so? I have the feeling this is 'popular' because there are no alternatives. Web is popular, this is just an accompanying disaster. There was an argument about fragmentation so people didn't want more things as option. As an answer to that there were many (?) attempts to solve problems that come with JavaScript for years, anybody remember cof…

In the GitHub [1] and TIOBE [2] language stats, Javascript is NOT the most popular language.

[1] https://madnight.github.io/githut/#/pull_requests/2024/1

[2] https://www.tiobe.com/tiobe-index/

Re: Oracle, it's time to free JavaScript

#52

Post by codemonke »

OptionOfT wrote: post #21

Does Oracle actually defend it? Isn't the rule behind a trademark that you actually need to enforce it? VELCRO(r) has this song about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRi8LptvFZY Edit: as I watched the video again I finally caught on the fact that RollerBlades are a brand of inline-skates. In Belgium we called them inline-skates. It's interesting to see how brands-as-identifiers change based on language and countr…

I just noticed that that video has a copyright notice at the end for Velcro BVBA (which I think is Belgian). Apparently it's a swiss invention. I had always assumed velcro was an American company, because in my language we don't say velcro either.

Re: Oracle, it's time to free JavaScript

#53

Post by cxr »

This is a stupid non-issue. You can go ahead and call it JavaScript despite what Oracle does or doesn't say.

Better yet, though: don't call it JavaScript—call it JS. "JavaScript" is and always was a dumb name. "JS" is not only fine, but better—and not because "JS" is particularly good, but because "JavaScript" itself isn't exactly hard to beat.

The only thing left to do is for the spec authors (which includes signatories to this petition) and the rest of TC-39 to say so; the next edition of ECMA-262 should modify the existing disclaimer in the preface about "JavaScript" being an Oracle trademark to state unequivocally that "JavaScript"—an unfortunate vestige of an ill-considered marketing decision in the 1900s—is a deprecated way to refer to the language not otherwise terribly well-known as ECMAScript and that the recommended way to refer to it is simply as "JS".

Re: Oracle, it's time to free JavaScript

#54

Post by throwanem »

alberth wrote: post #16

There’s lots of colloquially used names by the general public that technically infringe trademark. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_generic_and_generici... “Aspirin”, “elevators”, “laundromat” are just a few examples. Even “App Store” was trademarked (by Apple).

Genericization is by definition not infringement.

Re: Oracle, it's time to free JavaScript

#55

Post by jandrese »

jonny_eh wrote: post #23

Oracle still uses Java though. You can't spell JavaScript without Java. Regardless, JavaScript is now much larger than Java, so the trademark for JS should at least revert to the public.

I remember the day Netscape added "Javascript" and many people complained that the name was confusing because it had nothing at all to do with Java. It was especially confusing because people used to embed actual Java applications in webpages as "applets". It was a dumb marketing move right from the start and it has caused nothing but trouble ever since. It's way past time for the name to be changed.

Re: Oracle, it's time to free JavaScript

#56

Post by levi_n »

Finnucane wrote: post #19
sjsdaiuasgdia wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oracle's lawyers dutifully renew the trademark annually. Despite their lack of active use, this leaves the door open for future use. It creates a nebulous state where Oracle could choose to initiate a costly legal action against someone using the trademark. One of those situations where the law can be on your side but the real problem is if you can afford the legal battle.

As the letter notes, Oracle has never actually taken any kind of action to keep people from using the name. They don't even make performative reminders. They know their claim on the mark is weak and they aren't going to waste a lot of lawyer time on it. But it's Oracle, so they won't willingly give up anything that might be worth more than a dime. This is just to note their continued non-action when the USPTO is aske…

Lawnmower is gonna lawn mow

Re: Oracle, it's time to free JavaScript

#57

Post by jandrese »

austin-cheney wrote: post #8

JavaScript is just a name. The current language's official name, according to the specification defining that language, is ECMAScript. If the trademark is a problem then simply call it by a different name.

Nobody likes "ECMAScript". What a dog's breakfast of a name. Is Webscript already taken? If not I vote for that. I guess those node weirdos who want to write commandline programs using it might complain, but I think we can afford to lose them.

Re: Oracle, it's time to free JavaScript

#58

Post by criticalfault »

the_mitsuhiko wrote: post #41
criticalfault wrote: post #40

> JavaScript is the world’s most popular programming language Is this really so? I have the feeling this is 'popular' because there are no alternatives. Web is popular, this is just an accompanying disaster. There was an argument about fragmentation so people didn't want more things as option. As an answer to that there were many (?) attempts to solve problems that come with JavaScript for years, anybody remember cof…

> Is this really so? […] I have the feeling this is 'popular' because there are no alternatives I think it's pretty clear that JavaScript is the most popular one. And yes, it's popular because in it's space it's without alternatives. But so was C for many environments. We can judge if that's fair or unfair, but it does not change the situation we have.

Maybe it's about the definition of the word 'popular'.

Dictionary.com:

1. regarded with favor, approval, or affection by people in general

2. regarded with favor, approval, or affection by an acquaintance or acquaintances:

3. of, relating to, or representing the people, especially the common people:

4. of the people as a whole, especially of all citizens of a nation or state qualified to participate in an election:

5. prevailing among the people generally:

6. suited to or intended for the general masses of people:

7. adapted to the ordinary intelligence or taste:

8. suited to the means of ordinary people; not expensive:

I have always associated popular with definition 1. Let me ask differently: do people really like JavaScript or they like web and JavaScript is forced upon them since there are no alternatives (and they actually dislike/hate it)?

Re: Oracle, it's time to free JavaScript

#59

Post by sigzero »

cxr wrote: post #53

This is a stupid non-issue. You can go ahead and call it JavaScript despite what Oracle does or doesn't say. Better yet, though: don't call it JavaScript—call it JS. "JavaScript" is and always was a dumb name. "JS" is not only fine, but better—and not because "JS" is particularly good, but because "JavaScript" itself isn't exactly hard to beat. The only thing left to do is for the spec authors (which includes signato…

There is nothing better about "JS" over "JavaScript".

Re: Oracle, it's time to free JavaScript

#60

Post by cxr »

sigzero wrote: post #59
cxr wrote: post #53

This is a stupid non-issue. You can go ahead and call it JavaScript despite what Oracle does or doesn't say. Better yet, though: don't call it JavaScript—call it JS. "JavaScript" is and always was a dumb name. "JS" is not only fine, but better—and not because "JS" is particularly good, but because "JavaScript" itself isn't exactly hard to beat. The only thing left to do is for the spec authors (which includes signato…

There is nothing better about "JS" over "JavaScript".

Wrong, and that's not the question, anyway.

There is nothing worse about "JS" over "JavaScript".

(Whereas the reverse is not true—there is something worse about "JavaScript" over "JS". Several somethings.)

Post reply on HN