They should just revert the name to Mocha.
Help us raise $200k to free JavaScript from Oracle
321–330 of 374 posts
Re: Help us raise $200k to free JavaScript from Oracle
#322I remember a period where people just called it EcmaScript - so use that
They should just change it back to Mocha.
Re: Help us raise $200k to free JavaScript from Oracle
#323Re: Help us raise $200k to free JavaScript from Oracle
#324Re: Help us raise $200k to free JavaScript from Oracle
#325Earlier quoted context omitted.
> No, it still causes confusion from new programmers, HR, execs who thinks JavaScript === writing Java Scripts. Anyone that stupid in 2025 is hopeless.
Intelligence has nothing to do with it. You can’t deduce JavaScript and Java aren’t related, you have to be told/read that.
Neither you can deduce that car and carpet aren't related. For god's sake, even cars have carpets inside to add to the confusion!
Re: Help us raise $200k to free JavaScript from Oracle
#326Earlier quoted context omitted.
Intelligence has nothing to do with it. You can’t deduce JavaScript and Java aren’t related, you have to be told/read that.
Neither you can deduce that car and carpet aren't related. For god's sake, even cars have carpets inside to add to the confusion!
Please don’t strawman. It’s that kind of exaggerated bad faith argument that propagates anti-intellectualism in society.
I can’t believe I’m having to explain this, but you can show people a car and a carpet and they’ll understand how they differ. But if you show them two different programming languages, most people won’t be able to tell the difference. Just like most people see Chinese and Japanese, Swedish and Finnish, Portuguese and Spanish, and don’t know enough to distinguish one from the other, despite them having different names. They’re just similar-looking symbols organised in different ways.
Re: Help us raise $200k to free JavaScript from Oracle
#327Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But not all forms of marketing are bad. This is a classic association fallacy This is the classic "I'd accused your argument of being a fallacy so you're wrong and I'm right fallacy". Nah, all forms of marketing are bad.
It is literally association fallacy. And it is bad because it doesn't lead to a good discussion. Instead of actually talking about whether Deno is doing a good thing, the only way I can respond to "Nah, all forms of marketing are bad." is by saying "no they aren't", which won't change either of our minds and isn't a particularly interesting discussion. You seem to be saying that Deno reclaiming JavaScript is a bad th…
Well, ECMAScript is not owned by Oracle, and people can use that.
Re: Help us raise $200k to free JavaScript from Oracle
#328Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But not all forms of marketing are bad. This is a classic association fallacy This is the classic "I'd accused your argument of being a fallacy so you're wrong and I'm right fallacy". Nah, all forms of marketing are bad.
Marketing is a very wide field, even focusing on good service and good product is a form of marketing
>focusing on good service and good product is a form of marketing
Only if we stretch the meaning of term beyond any reasonable bounds.
Re: Help us raise $200k to free JavaScript from Oracle
#329Re: Help us raise $200k to free JavaScript from Oracle
#330Surprised by the amount of mentions of ECMAScript here. It’s the worst possible name to me.
People everywhere saying ecma script is a bad name feels like oracle hired people to hate on the best alternative so that demo keeps "fighting the fight" and make oracle lawyers more rich.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with sound of ecma script (maybe it's just a bit difficult on the tongue?). And not, it doesn't read like eczema, there's absolutely nothing related with that name other than the first two and last characters, reading one and the other they are completely different. It doesn't make sense to say they are similar. Stop with the astroturfing.
Everyone I see hating on ecma script simply say it's a bad name without argumenting or say it's similar to eczema, are we 12 now?
Potentially it could cause confusion between the spec and the language. But tbh I think the mistake was to create that differentiation in the first place. Let's just join these two together and there'll be no more head scratching of what is what.