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

Dear Oracle, Please Release the JavaScript Trademark

tinyclouds.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 146 posts

Re: Dear Oracle, Please Release the JavaScript Trademark

#101

Post by jasode »

GekkePrutser wrote: post #95

Haha asking Oracle to give up legal rights. Good luck with that :) :) :) PS I never understood why they called it JavaScript since it has nothing to do with Java.

>PS I never understood why they called it JavaScript since it has nothing to do with Java.

Netscape's Javascript had something to with Sun's Java in the sense that both languages were deliberately positioned together in the Netscape browser back in 1995. Key people from both Netscape and Sun worked together on that. Java would be positioned as the "professional compiled language" and Javascript would be the "easier scripting language". My previous comment with a link to Brendan Eich's explanation: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26502156

But yes, if one only looks at the syntax of Javascript being different from Java -- without any context of what happened in 1995, it does seem like Javascript was misnamed.

Re: Dear Oracle, Please Release the JavaScript Trademark

#102

Post by amelius »

sgt wrote: post #64
pvg wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can’t you just call it ECMAScript We're at about the right point in the timeline to start calling it YavaScript which both solves the trademark problem and keeps us on the path laid out in prophesy.

Or JawaScript

How about JECMAScript?

You still get to abbreviate it like JS, use the filename extension ".js", etc.

Re: Dear Oracle, Please Release the JavaScript Trademark

#107

Post by vips7L »

chrisseaton wrote: post #93

> Oracle does not have any products using the trademark … Oracle doesn’t even participate in the development of any of the JavaScript engines Strangely ignorant from Ryan - Oracle does maintain a JavaScript engine product - GraalJS. In fact is it possibly the only modern engine available under a commercial licence?

Nashorn is still maintained too, it’s just no longer in the jdk by default.

Re: Dear Oracle, Please Release the JavaScript Trademark

#108

Post by machinawhite »

threeseed wrote: post #55
machinawhite wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

a) I don't think you get to define words for us all

I must have missed the part where I was hired to define words for humanity. I was just offering my opinion that there are people on this planet who have caused unspeakable misery not just genocide but industrialised misery. And that throwing around the term evil to apply to a tough and unquestionably unethical businessman devalues it.

Well and in my opinion evil is not boolean attribute but a spectrum so I don't see how it doesn't apply to both?

Re: Dear Oracle, Please Release the JavaScript Trademark

#109

Post by temac »

simonh wrote: post #94
jackblemming wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My friend you need to get a grip. Mo Ibrahim employs people because he makes money off of them; not because he's a saint. Your phrasing makes it sound like Walmart employees should be licking the Walmart brothers boots for the opportunity to make them money. Billionaires become billionaires by setting up systems and collecting rent. That's it. Whether that's good or bad is a different topic.

All I'm saying is that a system without leaders that have creativity and vision would be a poor thing. Ultimately the question is, who should be in charge of allocating resources. There's a major role for government but I think largely, but not exclusively, it should be private citizens that have demonstrated their ability to start and run businesses and create jobs and products. If you think it should be someone els…

You don't need billions to be a private leader. Or you shouldn't.

Re: Dear Oracle, Please Release the JavaScript Trademark

#110

Post by simonh »

temac wrote: post #109
simonh wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All I'm saying is that a system without leaders that have creativity and vision would be a poor thing. Ultimately the question is, who should be in charge of allocating resources. There's a major role for government but I think largely, but not exclusively, it should be private citizens that have demonstrated their ability to start and run businesses and create jobs and products. If you think it should be someone els…

You don't need billions to be a private leader. Or you shouldn't.

You need billions to invest billions. For the most part those billions aren't piles of cash, they are the market value of shares in the companies they own and operate. To take that away from them, you'd be taking away control of those companies. Who are you going to give that control to instead?
Post reply on HN