Comments on: A Brief History of JavaScript http://brendaneich.com/2010/07/a-brief-history-of-javascript/ Wed, 16 Nov 2011 22:54:03 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Club AJAX | JavaScript – It’s a Real Language! http://brendaneich.com/2010/07/a-brief-history-of-javascript/#comment-1912 Club AJAX | JavaScript – It’s a Real Language! Fri, 01 Oct 2010 13:33:01 +0000 http://brendaneich.com/?p=186#comment-1912 [...] that only front end developers realize that it is!  Where is the confusion?  You have to look at the language’s origins.  Traditionally, JavaScript has always been part of the browser.   This absolutely has [...] [...] that only front end developers realize that it is!  Where is the confusion?  You have to look at the language’s origins.  Traditionally, JavaScript has always been part of the browser.   This absolutely has [...]

]]> By: CKL http://brendaneich.com/2010/07/a-brief-history-of-javascript/#comment-1498 CKL Fri, 10 Sep 2010 01:31:54 +0000 http://brendaneich.com/?p=186#comment-1498 Brendan: A company called Parallel Networks is suing about 60 defendants for infringement of USPatent 6,446,111. (See http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=wmR9AAAAEBAJ&dq=6446111 if you'd lioke a copy of the patent.) The patent claims a system comprising a server, a communications link, an "executable applet dynamically generated," and two constituent systems (data and a data interface). I'm so sure that this idea was not novel at the time of the patent application, Jun 18, 1999, but would love your help in proving it. Would you be so kind as to give me two minutes of your time to point me in the right direction? In particular, am looking for proof that software having these elements already existed at that time. I hate to see these trolls getting away with taking settlements for claims of infringement of invalid patents. (703) 851-3366 any time of day or night. Many thanks for your time. CKL Brendan: A company called Parallel Networks is suing about 60 defendants for infringement of USPatent 6,446,111. (See http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=wmR9AAAAEBAJ&dq=6446111 if you’d lioke a copy of the patent.) The patent claims a system comprising a server, a communications link, an “executable applet dynamically generated,” and two constituent systems (data and a data interface). I’m so sure that this idea was not novel at the time of the patent application, Jun 18, 1999, but would love your help in proving it. Would you be so kind as to give me two minutes of your time to point me in the right direction? In particular, am looking for proof that software having these elements already existed at that time. I hate to see these trolls getting away with taking settlements for claims of infringement of invalid patents. (703) 851-3366 any time of day or night. Many thanks for your time. CKL

]]> By: Ming http://brendaneich.com/2010/07/a-brief-history-of-javascript/#comment-888 Ming Fri, 06 Aug 2010 22:24:48 +0000 http://brendaneich.com/?p=186#comment-888 Awesome presentation! Can you post the slides in pdf? Thanks! Awesome presentation! Can you post the slides in pdf? Thanks!

]]> By: Paul http://brendaneich.com/2010/07/a-brief-history-of-javascript/#comment-844 Paul Tue, 03 Aug 2010 16:39:03 +0000 http://brendaneich.com/?p=186#comment-844 Thanks for the info, that's very kind of you. :) Thanks for the info, that’s very kind of you. :)

]]> By: Brendan Eich http://brendaneich.com/2010/07/a-brief-history-of-javascript/#comment-823 Brendan Eich Mon, 02 Aug 2010 16:48:35 +0000 http://brendaneich.com/?p=186#comment-823 Paul: both of those are ongoing work items, and we have made a lot of progress since I wrote that post, with more to come (and greater freedom now thanks to unfrozen APIs). But neither of those goods is a separable concern of the kind that, once "done", we could declare final victory. I erred in implying they were anything of the "bug fixed, code complete" kind. The static analysis work has helped both of those goals, and more static analysis remains to be done on several fronts (see http://sixgill.org which we are rehosting, IIRC). A pressing issue for us is how add-ons use our APIs, which so far has required lots of user testing and feedback just to deal with effects and attempt to work back to causes. Jetpack will help, but legacy add-ons will endure; static analysis could help a great deal in taming the wild beasts lurking in that tall grass. More on this later. /be Paul: both of those are ongoing work items, and we have made a lot of progress since I wrote that post, with more to come (and greater freedom now thanks to unfrozen APIs).

But neither of those goods is a separable concern of the kind that, once “done”, we could declare final victory. I erred in implying they were anything of the “bug fixed, code complete” kind.

The static analysis work has helped both of those goals, and more static analysis remains to be done on several fronts (see http://sixgill.org which we are rehosting, IIRC).

A pressing issue for us is how add-ons use our APIs, which so far has required lots of user testing and feedback just to deal with effects and attempt to work back to causes.

Jetpack will help, but legacy add-ons will endure; static analysis could help a great deal in taming the wild beasts lurking in that tall grass. More on this later.

/be

]]> By: Paul http://brendaneich.com/2010/07/a-brief-history-of-javascript/#comment-817 Paul Mon, 02 Aug 2010 10:23:49 +0000 http://brendaneich.com/?p=186#comment-817 Thank you for your reply. And what about the following two goals (as reported on that wiki page)? 1) "Clean up our APIs to be fewer, better, and "on the outside" of Gecko, with symbol visibility strictly limited to public APIs" 2) "Simplify the Mozilla codebase to make it smaller, faster, and easier to approach and maintain" Thank you for your reply.
And what about the following two goals (as reported on that wiki page)?

1) “Clean up our APIs to be fewer, better, and “on the outside” of Gecko, with symbol visibility strictly limited to public APIs”

2) “Simplify the Mozilla codebase to make it smaller, faster, and easier to approach and maintain”

]]> By: Brendan Eich http://brendaneich.com/2010/07/a-brief-history-of-javascript/#comment-806 Brendan Eich Sun, 01 Aug 2010 23:03:41 +0000 http://brendaneich.com/?p=186#comment-806 Paul: parts of Mozilla 2 happened and are awesome (we just switched to 2.0 for the Gecko rv: to match Firefox 4; we have great static analysis tools; we have at least nanojit shared with Adobe's Tamarin and TraceMonkey). Other parts of Mozilla 2 didn't work out (XPCOMGC, the whole of Tamarin, which was lapped by JS VMs two years ago). So we're in the Mozilla 2.0 milestone now. Who knew? /be Paul: parts of Mozilla 2 happened and are awesome (we just switched to 2.0 for the Gecko rv: to match Firefox 4; we have great static analysis tools; we have at least nanojit shared with Adobe’s Tamarin and TraceMonkey). Other parts of Mozilla 2 didn’t work out (XPCOMGC, the whole of Tamarin, which was lapped by JS VMs two years ago).

So we’re in the Mozilla 2.0 milestone now. Who knew?

/be

]]> By: Paul http://brendaneich.com/2010/07/a-brief-history-of-javascript/#comment-805 Paul Sun, 01 Aug 2010 19:23:13 +0000 http://brendaneich.com/?p=186#comment-805 Brendan, may I ask what happened to the "Mozilla 2" project? There was supposed to be a major platform rewrite and cleanup, but you never posted any update on that in the last couple of years. All I found is this wiki page, but it does not say much about the current status either (and the roadmap reported on this page is clearly not updated): https://wiki.mozilla.org/Mozilla_2 Thank you. Brendan, may I ask what happened to the “Mozilla 2″ project?
There was supposed to be a major platform rewrite and cleanup, but you never posted any update on that in the last couple of years. All I found is this wiki page, but it does not say much about the current status either (and the roadmap reported on this page is clearly not updated): https://wiki.mozilla.org/Mozilla_2
Thank you.

]]> By: orlando http://brendaneich.com/2010/07/a-brief-history-of-javascript/#comment-727 orlando Mon, 26 Jul 2010 18:35:27 +0000 http://brendaneich.com/?p=186#comment-727 "will do, check under Presentations in a bit. Thanks," brendan, sorry , i was thinking in a PDF ( or similar ) document ... when i asked “will do, check under Presentations in a bit. Thanks,”

brendan, sorry , i was thinking in a PDF ( or similar ) document … when i asked

]]> By: Chris Thomas http://brendaneich.com/2010/07/a-brief-history-of-javascript/#comment-715 Chris Thomas Sun, 25 Jul 2010 19:33:16 +0000 http://brendaneich.com/?p=186#comment-715 I mean, Microsoft force everyone to update Hardware after each new OS Hope Firefox won't follow that path Thanks! I mean, Microsoft force everyone to update Hardware after each new OS

Hope Firefox won’t follow that path

Thanks!

]]>