Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > Javascript > JavaScript and JScript....?

Reply
Thread Tools

JavaScript and JScript....?

 
 
the DtTvB
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-29-2006
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?

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Randy Webb
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-30-2006
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/
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-30-2006
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/
 
Reply With Quote
 
the DtTvB
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-30-2006
> 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.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Randy Webb
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-30-2006
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/
 
Reply With Quote
 
John G Harris
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-30-2006
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Randy Webb
<(E-Mail Removed)> 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
 
Reply With Quote
 
Randy Webb
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-30-2006
John G Harris said the following on 5/30/2006 3:46 PM:
> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Randy Webb
> <(E-Mail Removed)> 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/
 
Reply With Quote
 
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-31-2006
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"
 
Reply With Quote
 
Lasse Reichstein Nielsen
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-31-2006
Randy Webb <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

> John G Harris said the following on 5/30/2006 3:46 PM:
>> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Randy
>> Webb <(E-Mail Removed)> 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 - http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)
DHTML Death Colors: <URL:http://www.infimum.dk/HTML/rasterTriangleDOM.html>
'Faith without judgement merely degrades the spirit divine.'
 
Reply With Quote
 
John G Harris
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-31-2006
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Randy Webb
<(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>John G Harris said the following on 5/30/2006 3:46 PM:
>> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Randy Webb
>><(E-Mail Removed)> 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
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Javascript and IE? Javascript and C#? porter Javascript 6 10-06-2007 10:03 AM
dynamic javascript and html using javascript parez Javascript 0 09-11-2007 04:08 PM
JavaScript or not JavaScript Mark Rae ASP .Net 36 09-09-2006 01:12 PM
href="javascript:func()" vs href="#" onclick="javascript:func()" CRON HTML 24 06-20-2006 08:05 PM
Javascript -> Applet: variable reset after method call from javascript?! mcdeveloper Java 1 06-13-2006 08:34 AM



Advertisments