Java is not JavaScript - tell your friends | Hacker News Reader

Java is not JavaScript - tell your friends

nakedsecurity.sophos.com

28 pointsaynlaplant47 comments

Sometimes I feel like the idiotic marketing decision to name it "JavaScript" is never going to stop haunting us. The only ways out are for 1) Java to die (not going to happen), 2) JS to die (not going to happen), or 3) everybody to start calling it ECMAScript (probably not going to happen).

Just start calling it Mocha. That was to be the name originally, iirc, and it's heaps better.

I know one person who calls it ECMAScript. You probably know an awful lot about this person just by my telling you that one thing.

Except ECMAScript isn't correct either. ECMAScript is the name of the standard. Each browser implements a (different) subset of it. JavaScript used to be what Mozilla's implementation was called; Microsoft implemented JScript. ActionScript, the scripting language used in Adoble Flash, is also an implementation of ECMAScript.

Modern browsers implement ECMAScript 5; older browsers and AS 2.0 implement ECMAScript 3. ECMAScript 4 was scrapped, but AS 3.0 still implements it. Wikipedia, as usual, has all the gory details if anyone is actually interested http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECMAScript

> ECMAScript is the name of the standard. Each browser implements a (different) subset of it. JavaScript used to be what Mozilla's implementation was called; Microsoft implemented JScript.

mocha and livescript were the names at netscape. naming it javascript was a marketing strategy and a product of the sun-netscape cooperation. the ecmascript standard was born later, after the adoption of javascript/jscript.

I actually read your comment as a strong case for ECMAScript being the most correct. Certainly more than the name of one particular implementation of the language standard.

Browsers all implement HTML differently, but we're happy to refer to it by the name of the standard.

>ECMAScript is the name of the standard. Each browser implements a (different) subset of it

Supersets, not subsets. In terms of syntax, there is essentially no difference between ECMAScript, JavaScript, and JScript. They're just different implementations of the same thing. In fact, the only reason JScript has a different name is because Microsoft didn't want to license the Java trademark from Sun.

ActionScript is a different animal; it's a superset of ECMAScript and has a lot of additional syntax features, like data type support.

In any case, to work across different browsers, JS code is usually written in the intersection of the ECMAScript superset languages implemented by those browsers. That intersection is ECMAScript.

Ah, is Mocha where the naming for CoffeeScript came from then? I like it too.

I assume the name for CoffeeScript came from it being calling JavaScript.

Never is a long time. Java is in a strange, precarious situation already, and JavaScript won't last forever as the only option for client-side scripting. It'll slowly fade from relevance once there's a better option.

Plus humanity will eventually perish

Java is in no way in a precarious situation! its one of the most popular enterprise language. Just because the cool kids these days think java is lame because they've got their ruby and node.js, doesn't mean java is dying at all. And i m saying this even tho i dislike oracle.

Yes, but java applets ARE in precarious situation and they rarely work at all.

The only time I have seen a java applet recently was on a website with ATARI emulator (I guess it still wasn't ported to JavaScript and/or Flash).

you are correct. I also have mentally struck applets from memory, and so to me they no longer exist ;)

...except that there are stock trading software that is written as java applets...sigh...

Javascript will fade from relevance right after plastic decomposes.

And cockroaches go extinct.

"ECMAScript" sounds like some sort of horrible disease.

I agree; it is fitting.

Man, you should probably never say anything is fitting with a username like that. It's just too wide an opening.

It was originally called LiveScript if I remember correctly, which was a beautiful and descriptive name. But then they renamed it to JavaScript for some reason.

Agreed, LiveScript was a very good name.

I'm curious who owns the LiveScript trademark, if anyone. If the Mozilla Foundation inherited it from Netscape/AOL, they should give it to ECMA. At this point, the association with Java is probably more of a negative.

(The most popular web browser can't even use the JavaScript trademark, due to totally unrelated events from 15 years ago. IMO a rebranding would still be feasible.)

I don't know if they have a trademark for it or not, but a quick Google shows that a CoffeeScript-like language with that name exists.

I can be wrong, but I think remembering that Javascript is superset of ECMAScript (ActionScript being also based on ECMAScript, for example).

It's easy. Call it ... CoffeeScript.

/ducks

Tell recruiters, I keep getting calls for Struts jobs and I have to tell them I know nothing about that.

Oh God the recruiters. What types of Java Scripts do you know.

Disabling Java slightly reduces my security risk when browsing the web.

Disabling Javascript slightly reduces my security risk when browsing the web and greatly reduces my privacy risk. It's just that tracking people across the web is common to the point it is ignored...and it is amazing how many websites are better without it.

Most websites aren't very good without JS...

I use NoScript in Firefox. You can white-list the sites that want you to use JavaScript, and deny the ones that don't. I'll white-list HN, Reddit, Gmail, etc. but if I go to a site that isn't Facebook which suddenly requires me to enable Facebook's Javascript code, for who knows what reason, I'm not allowing that code to run in that session.

To more directly answer your question, yes, many sites will not be very good with JS turned off, but I can decide whether that site is using or not.

I prefer a solution like https://disconnect.me/ - disables Facebook/Google/etc JS scripts but lets the site use JS otherwise.

Nice one. I didn't know about this. Looking now at the video they link to: http://youtu.be/BK_E3Bjpe0E

NoScript is NoGood because it's a whitelist. The vast majority of JS on the web is useful and harmless. As more websites employ AJAX and web-app functionality by default, maintaining a whitelist is pretty much ridiculous. What you want, if anything, is a blacklist.

"Private browsing mode" is also more sensible than NoScript for browsing the unfamiliar Wild Web.

A whitelist is the equivalent of wearing a helmet when driving. Sure, in the event you roll your car, the helmet will come in handy.

A shocking number of web sites are better with JS disabled.

Examples, please and thank you.

Are you unaware of Ghostery, or do you not trust it (why not)?

https://www.ghostery.com/

I use that, AdBlock, and YesScript for the occasional particularly annoying site (it's a blacklist, not a whitelist like NoScript). I also clear all cookies on browser quit. Haven't lost sleep over browsing privacy in a long time.

Disabling javascript completely eliminates the ability to use the web effectively, unless you're Richard Stallman. 10 years ago we could justify disabling javascript, not today.

I default to JS off everywhere, then decide on a case-by-case basis if a site should be white-listed permanently, allowed to run javascript temporarily, or not allowed. Doing this allows me to prohibit all the various tracking snippets (as many as 10 at large media sites) while still allowing me to use the web quite effectively (in a non-RMS way).

Why not just browse in incognito/private mode?

Actually, based on this thread, I'm going to give ghostery a try. I like the speed increase of no JS when the site works without it, but there is a non-insignificant number if sites that require a reload after loading the content and finding it won't degrade gracefully.

The difference is Java is a third party add-on, while JavaScript is part of the browser.

I have to explain this difference to my dad about once a week.

Can't we just start calling javascript awesomescript?

Unfortunately, many of my non-developer/computer science friends make this confusion disturbingly often. All things considered, it's pretty understandable mistake. Look at Clojure/Clojurescript; though not a great analogy, it shows that such a name similarity definitely implies a relationship other than "it has similar syntax."

It's actually surprising how many technical people think that they're either the same, or javascript is closely related, perhapx a "lite" version. Then there are the JS frameworks that try to make coding in JavaScript more like coding im Java...

This reminds me that they did deliberately try to make JavaScript look like Java, but again it is for mostly marketing purposes.

Let's just hope Go! doesn't suddenly become popular...

Only an issue if Go becomes popular as well.

EDIT: Must have missed the headlines where Go was the new java.

What, you mean "issue 9" isn't a catchy enough name?

I my view, most non-technical people thinks 'Javascript is Java'.. not 'Java is Javascript' as given in the title.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com