271–280 of 393 posts
I actually think that people should rather use EcmaScript name instead of JavaScript, because it's a way better name (much less confusing, given that this lang doesn't have anything to do with Java anyway). I wish Oracle started suing people to force everyone to use the better name.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think normal people are actually aware what JS and HTML are. Most people are more tech savvy than we give them credit - or credit they might give themselves.
Maybe 1 in 10000 people who aren't developers.
But they DO work in an office, and use a web browser for 8 hours a day.
I actually think that people should rather use EcmaScript name instead of JavaScript, because it's a way better name (much less confusing, given that this lang doesn't have anything to do with Java anyway). I wish Oracle started suing people to force everyone to use the better name.
I am going to sound crazy, but, if Microsoft would free up TypeScript and every browser added native TypeScript features to JavaScript… and then we all just started calling it TypeScript. Maybe? Then you would see native ts files. Oracle will never give up JS. The funny thing is the number of people who confuse Java and JS.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From days of old... Invoking Applet Methods From JavaScript Code - https://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/deployment/applet/in... and Invoking JavaScript Code From an Applet - https://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/deployment/applet/in... Aside from the "Java is cool, name everything Java" in the early days - there was scripting between the browser and the applet using a language named JavaScript.
Eh, JavaScript wasn't the originally chosen name, it was LiveScript by Eich. I've never seen a justification for the name from anyone in the know, other than Eich's musing that Netscape wanted the "cool" factor. That "cool" factor was also why the original task of embedding scheme into the browser turned into a more C/Java-esque flavor.
https://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/deployment/applet/in...
> LiveConnect is a feature of web browsers which allows Java applets to communicate with the JavaScript engine in the browser, and JavaScript on the web page to interact with applets. The LiveConnect concept originated in the Netscape web browser, and to this date, Mozilla and Firefox browsers have had the most complete support for LiveConnect features. It has, however, been possible to call between JavaScript and Java in some fashion on all web browsers for a number of years.
https://www.oracle.com/java/technologies/javase/liveconnect-...
--
The naming appears to be confused.
https://web.archive.org/web/20101115234856/http://www.oracle...
> Improved Java/JavaScript communication. The bridge between the JavaScript engine in the web browser and the Java programming language has been completely reimplemented. The new implementation is backward-compatible and features improved reliability, performance and cross-browser portability, for both Java calling JavaScript as well as JavaScript calling Java. Formerly Mozilla-specific "LiveConnect" functionality, such as the ability to call static Java methods, instantiate new Java objects and reference third-party packages from JavaScript, is now available in all browsers.
The "LiveConnect" relating to the original LiveScript maybe? And that LiveConnect was a Netscape/Mozilla driven thing.
My point was more one of "JavaScript was the glue between applets and the HTML page itself early in the development of the language."
Renaming LiveScript to JavaScript and promoting the LiveConnect functionality wasn't an unreasonable thing at the time.
The last time this was brought up, "WebScript" was mentioned as a possible alternative name. (Like WebAssembly, WebSockets, WebRTC, etc.) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45297066
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am going to sound crazy, but, if Microsoft would free up TypeScript and every browser added native TypeScript features to JavaScript… and then we all just started calling it TypeScript. Maybe? Then you would see native ts files. Oracle will never give up JS. The funny thing is the number of people who confuse Java and JS.
For years we said bring something sane to browsers instead of trying to salvage js. At this point, though, why don't they just implement DOM bindings in wasm and make internets a better place overnight?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's less the fact that someone owns JS's trademark, and more that it's specifically Oracle (they got it when they bought Sun). Oracle is an incredibly litigious company. Their awful reputation in this respect means that the JS ecosystem can never be sure they won't swoop in and attempt to demand rent someday. This is made worse by the army of lawyers they employ; even if they're completely in the wrong, whatever pro…
That's why courts don't take hypothetical cases. Someone has to be injured to demonstrate actual harm. Are there any examples of Oracle using their JavaScript trademark to sue anyone? If they did, that petition would have merit. Unless Demo was, this feels like a marketing project. And it's working, too, so kudos.
I actually think that people should rather use EcmaScript name instead of JavaScript, because it's a way better name (much less confusing, given that this lang doesn't have anything to do with Java anyway). I wish Oracle started suing people to force everyone to use the better name.
EcmaScript is an awful name. It sounds too similar to eczema or ectoplasm. Ugly name.
I actually think that people should rather use EcmaScript name instead of JavaScript, because it's a way better name (much less confusing, given that this lang doesn't have anything to do with Java anyway). I wish Oracle started suing people to force everyone to use the better name.
Switch everything natively to Typescript.