Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <Po*********@we b.dewrites:
VK wrote:
>[...] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn [...] wrote:
>>You don't even know what you are
talking about to begin with: There is no "Javascript ". There are
JavaScript, JScript, and other ECMAScript implementations .
By your own strictly personal opinion not shared by anyone else here.
That is not an opinion, it is a fact accepted by people who know what
they are talking about (not you, of course).
Facts does not define how language works. People do.
I am fully aware of the number of different implementation of languages
that are (more or less) ECMAScript compliant, and runtime environments
that are (more or less) W3C DOM compliant.
If a script element with type="text/javascript" is encountered by
a browser, it uses its own ECMAScript-like language implementation
to parse it.
That does not mean that the content of the script element is JScript
when IE interprets it and JavaScript when Mozilla interprets it.
The content doesn't change, only its interpretation. Rarely will
the author have written the content to target a specific ECMAScript
compatible language.
The language that most people do write in those script elements has
no name or formal definition. It is closer to the intersection of
the languages implemented by the targeted clients (or, with feature
detection and switching, the union of the languages).
Because people likes things to have a name, the obvious name to apply
to it is "javascript ". And that is what everybody else have been
doing, consistently, for as long as it has mattered (q.v. the name of
this group).
I.e., it's *common usage*. Not formal definition, not official standard,
but still quite valid.
If anybody want this use of the word "javascript " to go away, they
need to come up with a better name. Anything else is flailing at
windmills.
There have been a number of misunderstandin gs regarding this in the
past, nevertheless it is true.
No, it's not. There is a "javascript ". There is, by and large, consensus
about what it means. No lack of formal standard can change that. That's
just not how human languages work.
It is even more important regarding the question at hand, as
different implementations may exhibit different stack sizes and
stack usage just because they are different.
Implementation matters, obviously, especially with anything that isn't
part of any standard (e.g., memory limits). I also doubt there is any
current language implementation that is 100% compliant with the
ECMAScript 3rd edition standard.
/L
--
Lasse Reichstein Nielsen -
lr*@hotpop.com
DHTML Death Colors: <URL:http://www.infimum.dk/HTML/rasterTriangleD OM.html>
'Faith without judgement merely degrades the spirit divine.'