Content deleted Content added
→"JavaScript engines" are "ECMAScript engines"?: new section |
|||
Line 55:
:since there wasn't anyff3.1, it was the differences between the browserversions 3.0 and 3.5! <small style="font:bold 12px Courier New;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap"><font color="#000">[[User talk:Mabdul|mabdul]]</font></small> 14:09, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
::Perhaps, but I think the article needs to be clearer about which versions are being compared. If nothing else it would be less confusing for those of us who don't have the version history of Firefox memorised. [[Image:Smile eye.png]] [[User:Jakew|Jakew]] ([[User talk:Jakew|talk]]) 14:48, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
== "JavaScript engines" are "ECMAScript engines"? ==
I think it would be better to combine the list of JavaScript engines in this article with the list of ECMAScript engines in the article [[List_of_ECMAScript_engines | List of ECMAScript engines]]. They are actually the same thing, aren't they? Similarly, it's better to write that "JScript and JavaScript are implementations (or dialects, whatever you like) of ECMAScript", and that "Chakra" is an ECMAScript engine.
To my understanding after reading a lot of primary source material, there is a conflation or confusion between the terms JScript and JavaScript, and an avoidance of the term ECMAScript, from time to time, in the Wikipedia articles on the ECMAScript family of dialects and implementations, leading to some duplication of material and unnecessary articles and disambiguation.
There are lots of comments in this talk page and other talk pages around the same or similar point.
I'm not saying that the term "JavaScript engine" is nonsense, far from it. It's just that the only precise interpretation I can think of for "JavaScript engines" as distinct from "ECMAScript engines" would be to refer to that subset of engines produced by vendors who are calling their language "JavaScript", basically every vendor except Microsoft, I think. I would suggest that distinction is not particularly helpful for us. Also when I see the term "JavaScript engine" I keep thinking the writer "really means" ECMAScript engine, but wants to use a more friendly term. But I think it's better for us in the long run to be more precise in an encyclopedia.
I wanted to put this out for discussion first, given the large amount of work going into this part of the Computing Languages section of Wikipedia. [[User:DonToto|DonToto]] ([[User talk:DonToto|talk]]) 06:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
| |||