During your presentation, you commented upon Managed JScript and how it will be ECMAScript 3 compliant. I heard this before and questioned Scott Guthrie on this on day one and he felt that couldn't be right as it wouldn't handle .NET OO features properly. Do you know for certain if it will be fully ECMAScript 3 compliant?
David Arno | Homepage | 07/09/13 - 8:06 pm | #

I got ECMAScript 3 from the video of John Lam and Jim Hugunin talking at the Vegas Mix where the whole thing was introduced. I've not heard *anything* else on the subject elsewhere.

The Ruby object model is vastly different to the .NET one (and the Python one is pretty different) - so I don't *think* that differences in object model alone would be the reason to target a different version...

Michael
Michael Foord | Homepage | 07/09/13 - 8:55 pm | #

Please do be sure to point to the videos once they're online. I'm looking forward to seeing them, especially yours and Simon Peyton-Jones' (if it too becomes available -- I just watched videos of his OSCON 2007 "A Taste of Haskell" which is immensely entertaining, not to mention educational for someone like me who's never really gotten into functional programming. Well worth the ~400MB download, even on this 56k modem -- I now have ghci running in a terminal to explore further and have started reading the Haskell wikibook).

Just the other day I discovered the sessions.visitmix.com site with its videos of all the MIX (non-UK) presentations and especially enjoyed watching Jim Huginin and John Lam's introduction to the DLR -- Microsoft really does a good job of making stuff available to those who can't attend. I just wish PyCon 2005 wasn't the last time recordings were made available of the presentations at that conference, because I really enjoyed listening to those.

PS: http://blogs.msdn.com/jitu/ archi...imitations.aspx also says Ecmascript 3.0 and seems to be from someone somehow involved in Managed JScript. From reading it, it seems like they are more interested in being Ecmascript 3.0-compatible than in being Microsoft JScript-compatible or .NET-compatible. But I gather that David Arno's concern is less around the mismatch between Ecmascript and .NET, but rather concern at the choice of Ecmascript version 3.0 and its mismatch to .NET in comparison to a different version of Ecmascript? But I know nothing about Ecmascript/Javascript/Jscript so I'm not really sure what has changed between 3.0 and whatever the current version is.
Anonymous | 07/09/15 - 3:46 pm | #

Thanks for the link, " Anonymous". It does indeed sound like its almost an annoyance to them having to make Managed JScript work with .NET. All very strange.

The thrust of my gripe against making Managed JScript fully compatible with ECMAScript is that it will then be incompatible with both JScript.NET and ActionScript. The only reason I could imagine any sane person choosing to use Managed JScript would be to port ActionScript to Silverlight. So the lack of compatibility is just bizarre in my view.
David Arno | Homepage | 07/09/17 - 6:53 pm | #

The reason to be EcmaScript 3 compatible is (my understanding) to make it easy to port traditional Javascript (AJAX) to run on Silverlight. They have deliberately dropped compatibility with JScript.NET because they wanted compliance ahead of JScript.NET compatibility and - these two requirements weren't compatible.
Michael Foord | Homepage | 07/09/17 - 7:10 pm | #