«

I heard it is not the same.
The lastest version of JavaScript is 1.6 while lastest version of
JScript is 8.0
I also heard a little bit about ECMAScript, but I still don't know
what's the difference of them.
So, what's exactly the difference of it?

the DtTvB said the following on 5/29/2006 7:27 PM:
> I heard it is not the same.

What is not the same?

> The lastest version of JavaScript is 1.6 while lastest version of
> JScript is 8.0

JScript is at 8.0 now? I must catch up.....

> I also heard a little bit about ECMAScript, but I still don't know
> what's the difference of them.
> So, what's exactly the difference of it?

The name mostly. And who maintains the documentation.

Javascript - Netscapes rendition adopted by other browsers.
JScript - IE's rendition.
ECMAScript - an attempt to try to standardize the language by a group
that has nothing to do with anything to do with the language other than
trying to attempt to standardize it so there is a standard for it.

Javascript is also a generic term used to refer to client side scripting.

--
Randy
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq & newsgroup weekly
Javascript Best Practices - http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/

the DtTvB wrote:

> [...] lastest version of JScript is 8.0

Really? I thought it is 7.0 (JScript.NET, only server-side AFAIK). Could
you tell about the JScript execution environment you are using (Server or
User-Agent header would probably suffice)?

> I also heard a little bit about ECMAScript, but I still don't know
> what's the difference of them.
> So, what's exactly the difference of it?

<URL:http://jibbering.com/faq/#FAQ2_6>
<URL:http://pointedears.de/es-matrix>


PointedEars
--
http://members.ud.com/download/gold/
http://folding.stanford.edu/
http://alien.de/seti/
http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/

> Really? I thought it is 7.0 (JScript.NET, only server-side AFAIK). Could
> you tell about the JScript execution environment you are using (Server or
> User-Agent header would probably suffice)?

I don't use JScript, that's why I asked.

the DtTvB said the following on 5/30/2006 6:02 AM:
>> Really? I thought it is 7.0 (JScript.NET, only server-side AFAIK). Could
>> you tell about the JScript execution environment you are using (Server or
>> User-Agent header would probably suffice)?
>
> I don't use JScript, that's why I asked.
>

JScript on the client is at 6.0, on the server is 7.0.

Further, ECMAScript is a theory about how things should be rather than a
reflection of how things really are.

--
Randy
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq & newsgroup weekly
Javascript Best Practices - http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/

In article <S6idnYzV6P0k-OHZnZ2dnUVZ_s->, Randy Webb
<> writes

<snip>
>Further, ECMAScript is a theory about how things should be rather than
>a reflection of how things really are.

Why do you say this? It isn't true.

Do you say that the ECMA standard for C# is also "a theory about how
things should be rather than a reflection of how things really are"?

John
--
John Harris

John G Harris said the following on 5/30/2006 3:46 PM:
> In article <S6idnYzV6P0k-OHZnZ2dnUVZ_s->, Randy Webb
> <> writes
>
> <snip>
>> Further, ECMAScript is a theory about how things should be rather than
>> a reflection of how things really are.
>
> Why do you say this?

Because it is.

> It isn't true.

It isn't? Can you tell me where to find the specification for innerHTML
in the ECMA documentation?

If you can, then my statement is false.
If you can't, then my statement is true.

..innerHTML is very very widely supported yet you won't find it in the
ECMAScript documentation. That alone prevents ECMAScript from being a
reflection of reality and more a theory of how it should be.


> Do you say that the ECMA standard for C# is also "a theory about how
> things should be rather than a reflection of how things really are"?

I said nothing about ECMA's standard for C# or any other language other
than ECMAScript.

--
Randy
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq & newsgroup weekly
Javascript Best Practices - http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/

Randy Webb wrote:

> John G Harris said the following on 5/30/2006 3:46 PM:
>> [...] Randy Webb [...] writes
>> <snip>
>>> Further, ECMAScript is a theory about how things should be rather than
>>> a reflection of how things really are.
>>
>> Why do you say this?
>
> Because it is.
>
>> It isn't true.
>
> It isn't? Can you tell me where to find the specification for innerHTML
> in the ECMA documentation?
>
> If you can, then my statement is false.
> If you can't, then my statement is true.

No, your logic is flawed.

> .innerHTML is very very widely supported yet you won't find it in the
> ECMAScript documentation. That alone prevents ECMAScript from being a
> reflection of reality and more a theory of how it should be.

ISTM you have yet to understand the basic difference between native
objects and host objects, among many other basic things about Web
development.

You will find no native object (all of them are defined in ECMAScript) to
have a built-in `innerHTML' property; element objects (that can have this
property built-in, depending on the DOM) are host objects, not native
objects. In fact, element objects are provided by the Document Object
Model of the host environment (here: HTML UA), and as such may have other
properties that are not defined in any standard. (Where the corresponding
Web standard here is not ECMA-262, but the W3C DOM, particularly W3C DOM
Level 2 HTML.)

On the other hand, in ECMAScript implementations you will find the Global
Object to have host-defined properties, such as `window'. Those are of
course not defined in the ECMAScript Specification explicitly. However,
ECMAScript allows the Global Object explicitly to have such properties.
Furthermore, known implementation-specific deviations from the
Specification are backed up by the Specification's own Conformance section.

Probably someone has explained all of this (to you) here before.


PointedEars
--
When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then
whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.
-- Sherlock Holmes in Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's
"The Blanched Soldier"

Randy Webb <> writes:

> John G Harris said the following on 5/30/2006 3:46 PM:
>> In article <S6idnYzV6P0k-OHZnZ2dnUVZ_s->, Randy
>> Webb <> writes
>> <snip>
>>> Further, ECMAScript is a theory about how things should be rather
>>> than a reflection of how things really are.
....
>> It isn't true.
>
> It isn't? Can you tell me where to find the specification for
> innerHTML in the ECMA documentation?

Nowhere. Like there is no specification for the path of the Earth
around the sun or the notes of a symphony by Mozart. Neither is
relevant to the specification of ECMAScript, but all exist
as "things really are".

No specification specifies everything. What matters is how they
match how things really are *within their scope*

> If you can, then my statement is false.
> If you can't, then my statement is true.

Ah, the Chewbacca defense


> .innerHTML is very very widely supported yet you won't find it in the
> ECMAScript documentation.

Why would you even look there, and not in the much more likely W3C
DOM Specification?

> That alone prevents ECMAScript from being a reflection of reality
> and more a theory of how it should be.

That argument would prevent any specification from being a reflection
of reality.

>> Do you say that the ECMA standard for C# is also "a theory about how
>> things should be rather than a reflection of how things really are"?
>
> I said nothing about ECMA's standard for C# or any other language
> other than ECMAScript.

But the C# standard doesn't say anything about Java either!
/L
--
Lasse Reichstein Nielsen -
DHTML Death Colors: <URL:http://www.infimum.dk/HTML/rasterTriangleDOM.html>
'Faith without judgement merely degrades the spirit divine.'

In article <4_udnf6FVsbdXOHZRVn->, Randy Webb
<> writes
>John G Harris said the following on 5/30/2006 3:46 PM:
>> In article <S6idnYzV6P0k-OHZnZ2dnUVZ_s->, Randy Webb
>><> writes
>> <snip>
>>> Further, ECMAScript is a theory about how things should be rather
>>>than a reflection of how things really are.
>> Why do you say this?
>
>Because it is.
>
>> It isn't true.
>
>It isn't? Can you tell me where to find the specification for innerHTML
>in the ECMA documentation?

Gigadollar corporations want to be able to use javascript in
applications that are nothing to do with HTML. The Windows Scripting
Host is an obvious example. As a result the specifications of innerHTML
and file access objects have been split off into other documents.

This follows the well known software engineering principle of separation
of concerns, a lot like good OO design in fact.

>If you can, then my statement is false.
>If you can't, then my statement is true.

Your statement is neither. Putting innerHTML in a separate document is
not a theory - it's very practical - but it is a reflection of reality -
it doesn't exist in some javascript environments.

>.innerHTML is very very widely supported yet you won't find it in the
>ECMAScript documentation. That alone prevents ECMAScript from being a
>reflection of reality and more a theory of how it should be.
<snip>

WSH is also widely supported; in every Win XP for a start.

John
--
John Harris