I linked to the anchor where it says that, right to the bottom of the section 4.3. Will people just STOP saying JavaScript was ‘never intended’ to have ‘nothing to do with Java’? They clearly meant JavaScript to be to Java what AWK is to C, at least syntax-wise. I was born one year after JS was conceived (the standard says ‘invented’, invented my ass! Who ‘invents’ a language?) so I am too young to have been around in the early days of web. But it seems like people back then wanted Java to be lingua franca of web, a bit like PostScript in the thread I posted a few hours ago. They named it JavaScript to assure people that it’s the interpreted, scripting form of Java.

Now don’t say ‘JS and Java are like car and carpet’ you will look like an idiot.

Also if you are wondering why I am reading the standard, it serves two purposes. First is, I wanna implement it one day in the future. Second is, I know shit about web scripting and I wanted to make myself a blog and I miserably failed. So I am learning it.

I know nobody asked, but one person might be wondering why someone would do this to himself.

  • abhibeckert@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    They clearly meant JavaScript to be to Java what AWK is to C

    No. From interviews with the people who created JavaScript what actually happened is they invented an awesome new language, and the boss had just signed a contract to integrate Java into Netscape.

    That contract specifically banned Netscape from supporting anything other than Java… but the new language was so awesome they didn’t want to kill it. The compromise was to call it “JavaScript” and insist it’s not a new language, it’s just a light weight version of Java. Even though clearly that was bullshit and they all knew it - they just didn’t admit it publicly until decades later.

    • ChubakPDP11+TakeWithGrainOfSalt@programming.devOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      This makes so much sense! The other guy said they were planning an S-Expression language like Scheme… I think, had Netscape supported Scheme, the trajectory of the craft would change. At least we would not get so many ‘durr parenthesis’ memes. Just how hard is it to use [Neo]Vim when you’re writing S-Expressions? it keeps highlighting the paranthesis and brackets balance as I write. What text editor do people who hate S-Expression LISP-like languages use, Emacs? Lol.

      • Tramort@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        Emacs is written in lisp, so if people are going to die on the hill that they hate s expressions then I’m going to say no: they probably won’t be using emacs