Talk:JavaScript
|
|
Useful URLs to use for further work [1] (http://www.webreference.com/js/column65/3.html) and Inheritance through Prototypes (http://www.webreference.com/js/column34/)
ECMAScript? I have never heard of it. Anyone knows the reason that we should name the article ECMAScript instead of widely-known JavaScript? -- Taku 07:06 Feb 25, 2003 (UTC)
- ECMAScript only defines the core of JavaScript. Maybe it's good to put JavaScript-specific parts into JavaScript. -- Nanshu 11:21 Feb 25, 2003 (UTC)
- Agreed. I bet most of people expect an independent artcile about JavaScript. Remember the principle of least surprise. The title should be the most familiar one not educational. If usage is wrong (like Harakiri), if it is common, the title should be it. -- Taku 16:03 Feb 25, 2003 (UTC)
ECMAScript is just the standardized version of JavaScript, so I think the main article should be at JavaScript. ECMAScript can either redirect to JavaScript, or can have information specifically about the standardized version (e.g., what is or is not in the standard, how the standard came about, etc.). --Zundark 22:09 Feb 25, 2003 (UTC)
- Ok now. Then could some sysop rename the title to JavaScript? -- Taku 22:16 Feb 25, 2003 (UTC)
- Done, this time with history intact. --Brion 02:38 Feb 26, 2003 (UTC)
- ECMAScript is not JavaScript, seems to me that its better to have an article making the true relationship between ECMAScript and JavaScript clear and then linking to all of the various ECMAScript implementations (there are more than JavaScript and JScript) than to perpetuate the myth that ECMAScript and JavaScript are one and the same. McClade 17:23, Mar 8, 2004 (UTC)
- There is no 'myth', ECMAScript is the standardized form of JavaScript/JScript. Therefore JS should be treated as what it is, an incomplete implementation of the ECMA core with nonstandard (but wide-spread) additions. Chopping off JavaScript from this article makes no sense to me, you might as well chop off HTML 4.01 transitional from HTML 4.01 strict in the HTML article then. Jor 17:49, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- JavaScript was the basis of ECMAScript but there as some very good reasons for keeping the two seperate. For example, I'm currently working on an interpreter for the new CCXML standard. The spec for CCXML specifies the use of ECMAScript within CCXML documents, meaning that when we came to write our interpreter we were free to use any ECMAScript language we liked. We could've used JavaScript, JScript (there are differences), FOSI, or even writen our own. More importantly our competitors could have done the same. Using a standard like ECMAScript is the only way the W3C people could ensure portability of scripts without tieing people into one implementation.
- The same situation exists in Web Browsers. Netscape uses a JavaScript interpreter, IE uses JScript and Opera uses a more pure ECMAScript interpreter with some extensions to support JavaScript and JScript. All three browsers use different languages and so support some different code, but all three are ECMAScript complient and will run true ECMAScript code. ECMAScript is very important in its own right, seperate from JavaScript and so deserves a seperate entry in the Wikipedia. McClade 22:51, Mar 8, 2004 (UTC)
- ECMAScript, I believe, was once the basis of JavaScript. In the era of Internet Explorer 3.0 and Netscape Navigator 2.0, both parties developed their own versions of JavaScript, and the major part of it was made into ECMAScript, which contained the best features of both parties. --x42bn6 11:02, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
____
What about JScript for .NET? Is it just planned or is it in an SDK somewhere? --Hirzel 19:51 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- JScript is the Microsoft version of JavaScript, it is not the same thing.
--ThatNateGuy 22:33, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
How exactly is script-commenting "forbidden" with XHTML or XML? I think what this means is that the scripts just won't run if they're in a comment. I'm changing it in the article, just wanted to point it out here. -- ESP 05:27 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- I believe it's because you cannot put '<' and '>' within <script> tags, because they are considered 'tags' that are not closed. In fact, with XHTML, you need to put '\<' and '\>' in place of '<' and '>' to acheive compliance. Unfortunately, neither of the replacements constitute valid JavaScript comments. --x42bn6 11:02, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
AFAIK the User interaction and Events sections are not really part of JavaScript, but rather of the DHTML DOM. For example, when using JavaScript on the server side one cannot use the functions listed in the User interaction section, nor the events which are specific to DHTML DOM objects.
One other issue may be the example given for inheritance. The problem lies with the statement:
Derive.prototype = new Base();
This statement causes the construction of an instance of Base, and assigns this instance to be the prototype for Derive. But what if the constructor of Base needed to receive parameters? For example, consider the following:
function Base(attributeA) {
this.attributeA = attributeA;
}
function Derive(attributeA, attributeB) {
this.constructor = Base;
this.constructor(attributeA);
this.attributeB = attributeB;
}
d = new Derive('red', 1000);
alert(d.attributeA);
alert(d.attributeB);
It is not possible to do this using the Derive.prototype = new Base() notation.
Also missing is some expansion of the explanation of the scoping rules (i.e., functions define a new scope for all internally declared function and variables), and some reference to the object specifier this. --RoySharon 10:27 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Isn't KJS suppoed to be called NJS? And the link is http://www.bbassett.net/njs/ I don't know, just asking.
It would be useful to include a section on "JavaScript Security Issues"
Is there enough reference material in this article to make a WikiBook (http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Programming:JavaScript) out of it? I'd like to write a few notes about the different ways javascript can be used (e.g. using spidermonkey to embed it in your applications) and a bit on the relative power of javascript, perhaps a link to the Paul Graham article, but it feels a bit overpowered by some of the many details we have of programming this language. Ojw 21:39, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
| Contents |
Variables and Math
I removed these three sentences from the article, under the heading "Variables":
This makes it easier to use variables than in some other languages, but results in some problems in math. For example, the JavaScript calculation 81.66*15 will give 124.899999.... instead of 124.9. This is because there are no specifications on precision.
The last two sentences are fine, but they would need to go into a different kind of section, perhaps if we added a "Critism" heading or something. (Also, it would need to be pointed out that this is a common critisim of implementations that rely on the IEEE floating point standards).
The first sentence is some kind of flaw in someone's reasoning. What does the nature of JavaScript variables have to do with "problems in math"? Its preceeding sentences were discussing scope and dynamic typing, niether of which affects mathematical precision.
func(talk) 01:56, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Concerning E4X
"has partial support of E4X, which is the fourth revision of ECMAScript." this is wrong E4X is an language extension defined in ECMA-357
- OK, I changed it to:
- ...has partial support of E4X, which is a language extension dealing with XML, defined in the ECMA-357 version of ECMAScript.
- is that correct? func(talk) 21:24, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
History of JavaScript
I found these bits in FAQTs [2] (http://www.faqts.com/knowledge_base/view.phtml/aid/1380/fid/53):
- Netscape's LiveScript was actually derived from CEnvi. CEnvi was a powerful yet easy to use interpreted version of the C programming language developed by NOMBAS (http://www.nombas.com). Of course, NOMBAS has since changed the name of its language to ScriptEase(TM) and expanded the implementation (marketed as ScriptEase Desktop) significantly, particularly to conform to the ECMA standards and to ensure cross-platform compatibility.
I wonder if it is true and whether we should add these bits to the LiveScript article (instead of redirecting). --minghong 03:32, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- This is really fascinating; something that I've never heard of before. We need information on it somewhere. func(talk) 20:40, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
JavaScript in wikis
(maybe the wrong place to ask, but here I go) Does Wikipedia support JavaScript? Phlebas 19:42, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Do you mean JavaScript that could be added by a user? No, that would represent a horrible security risk, given that anyone can edit a wiki page. I shudder at the thought. JavaScript is used by Wikimedia software, however, which you can see by looking at the source code of a page. You can also use Bookmarklets to assist you in your Wikipedia editing experience, (if you know how). func(talk) 20:38, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, exactly what I meant. It would mean total mayhem. Phlebas 21:58, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
__defineSetter__/__defineGetter__
These two functions, used in the article to create private variables, are not in the ECMAScript standard, nor E4X. A quick search didn't bring up any documentation for them, either. They aren't supported by Internet Explorer, so I wouldn't call them a de facto part of the language, either. I'll leave a note in that section. --Quamaretto 02:10, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC) (whoops)
- No, they are not part of any standard. They were Mozilla extensions, and (I think) they still work in the newest versions of Netscape, as well as in other implementations that use SpiderMonkey, ie: JavaScript OSA. func(talk) 18:17, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- ...and Konfabulator, as well. :) func(talk) 23:01, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hierachies without prototyping?
I don't see the value of this technique or the mention of it. Inheritance is supported directly through prototyping. (Nearly same thing can be done in C, or any other language with function pointers.) Opinions? --Quamaretto 02:09, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC) (whoops)
- Yeah, its a bit of an odd example, isn't it? Some things in this article seem almost hostile toward the prototype-based nature of the language. This example:
this.BaseFunction = function()
{
alert("Base::BaseFunction()");
- where they've used the double colon operator from some class-based languages seems forced and not particularly useful. Of course, the "JavaScript 2.0" people have been moving away from prototyping as well. func(talk) 23:00, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- If no one objects, then, I may add some more about prototyping. I've written a few thousand lines of it at work recently (AJAX, for better or worse) and it needs to be explained. --Quamaretto 02:10, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
window part of DOM?
The following sentence in the text would lead one to believe that the windows object is part of the W3C DOM:
For example, in a browser, typical host objects belong to the DOM (window, form, links etc.).
That can't be right, can it?