[lnkForumImage]
TotalShareware - Download Free Software
Confronta i prezzi di migliaia di prodotti.
Asp Forum
 Home | Login | Register | Search 


 

Forums >

comp.lang.javascript

The ECMA standard: too harsh a tone?

ram

1/1/2016 6:20:00 PM

Usually, the more prominent and powerful a person gets,
the more moderate gets his tone.

And Douglas Crockford is one of the most prominent authors
in the world of JavaScript.

About the ECMA-Standard he writes on his page

www.crockford.com/javascript/javascript.html

as follows: »

Substandard Standard« ... »extremely poor quality« ...
»ECMA and the TC39 committee should be deeply embarrassed

«. I am sorry, but for such a prominent man, isn't this
a little bit too harsh a tone?

Do you agree with his assessment?

He might have written this some years ago referring to
a previous version of the standard. But he has not since
revoked or clarified it either.
3 Answers

Aleksandro

1/1/2016 6:32:00 PM

0

On 01/01/16 15:19, Stefan Ram wrote:
> Usually, the more prominent and powerful a person gets,
> the more moderate gets his tone.
>
> And Douglas Crockford is one of the most prominent authors
> in the world of JavaScript.
>
> About the ECMA-Standard he writes on his page
>
> www.crockford.com/javascript/javascript.html
>
> as follows: »
>
> Substandard Standard« ... »extremely poor quality« ...
> »ECMA and the TC39 committee should be deeply embarrassed
>
> «. I am sorry, but for such a prominent man, isn't this
> a little bit too harsh a tone?
>
> Do you agree with his assessment?
>
> He might have written this some years ago referring to
> a previous version of the standard. But he has not since
> revoked or clarified it either.
>

I would say: poor opinion, he should be deeply embarrased.

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

1/2/2016 12:38:00 AM

0

Stefan Ram wrote:

> Usually, the more prominent and powerful a person gets,
> the more moderate gets his tone.

Cite evidence.

> And Douglas Crockford is one of the most prominent authors
> in the world of JavaScript.
>
> About the ECMA-Standard he writes on his page

There is not â??the ECMA-Standardâ?. ECMA-262 (â??ECMAScript Language
Specification�) is one of several standards published by Ecma International.

> www.crockford.com/javascript/javascript.html
>
> as follows: »

This is _not_ how one quotes a source properly, neither in Usenet nor
elsewhere.

> Substandard Standard« ... »extremely poor quality« ...
> »ECMA and the TC39 committee should be deeply embarrassed
>
> «. I am sorry, but for such a prominent man, isn't this
> a little bit too harsh a tone?

No, it is. But also note the date when this was written.

> Do you agree with his assessment?

No.

> He might have written this some years ago referring to
> a previous version of the standard.

*Might*?

> But he has not since revoked or clarified it either.

Like other people, Douglas Crockford has many misconceptions.
Unfortunately, many of his lie within his favorite topic.

--
PointedEars
FAQ: <http://PointedEars.... | SVN: <http://PointedEars.de...
Twitter: @PointedEars2 | ES Matrix: <http://PointedEars.de/es-...
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

Scott Sauyet

1/18/2016 5:23:00 PM

0

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Stefan Ram wrote:

>> Substandard Standard« ... »extremely poor quality« ...
>> »ECMA and the TC39 committee should be deeply embarrassed
>>
>> «. I am sorry, but for such a prominent man, isn't this
>> a little bit too harsh a tone?
>
> No, it is. But also note the date when this was written.

That's a bit tricky. The document does not detail a publication
date, either in its text or in its metadata. It does mention a
copyright year of 2001, but it also makes reference to an edition
of a book not published until 2006.

The WayBack Machine [1] has snapshots of this document going back
as far as 2002-08-10, and the oldest one makes reference to an
earlier edition of that same book, one published in December, 2001.
I did not try to do any further comparison of that old snapshot to
the current document, though.

Without a fair bit more research, those are the only clues I have
to the age of the document, other than my own somewhat fuzzy memory
of how long it's been since I first saw it.

[1]: <https://web.archi...

-- Scott