Talk: Object

Javascript/JavaScript/JScript

Beware: 'Javascript' is usually used to mean ECMAScript implementations in general, but JavaScript is more specifically Netscape/Mozilla's JavaScript language. For example, 'Javascript' could refer to JScript, while 'JavaScript' wouldn't. — Twey 11:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I've never encountered this distinction before (except when I halfway formulated it as an excuse for why the wiki's name was Javascript). Verifiability isn't such a high priority as on Wikipedia, but do you have a source for this? --Jesdisciple (talk) 17:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

JScript is obviously a Microsoft trademark, and the name 'JavaScript' is the result of a deal between Netscape and Sun; Sun still hold this trademark (http://www.sun.com/suntrademarks/). — Twey 18:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean the reason behind the convention; I know the history behind the language. I mean the convention itself. Has any party prominent in the JS discussion explicitly stated this (not on a wiki)? I found the distinction rather confusing while I used it, and all the forums I've ever seen just use JavaScript. --Jesdisciple (talk) 18:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about prominent parties, but it's the convention in all the Javascript-oriented discussion venues I've frequented (viz. DynamicDrive and ##javascript). Of course, prominent parties tend to have some vested interest in one implementation or the other, so it's often difficult to tell whether they mean that specific implementation or not. Nevertheless, logically and legally, 'JavaScript' can only mean the implementation condoned by Sun — it's for this reason that the standard describes 'ECMAScript' rather than 'JavaScript' — and it seems to have permeated acceptably. — Twey 18:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Not so legally (at least in practice): [1] As far as clarifying which we're referring to, I'd rather use "JavaScript" (general), "JScript", "Mozilla's JavaScript", "Safari's JavaScript", etc. --Jesdisciple (talk) 18:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, if it's accepted. Of course, 'ECMAScript' can be used where appropriate. — Twey 18:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Certainly. I'm very meticulous in choosing my terms as I can see you are as well. --Jesdisciple (talk) 19:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

"prototype" in method documentation

Twey, I'm curious why you chose the verbose notation for methods (and not for properties)? Any built-in member will be attached to the prototype rather than an instance, unless of course you count DOM objects. --Jesdisciple (talk) 21:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, brain fart, nothing more :) — Twey 22:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Umm... That response was the opposite from what I expected. Why use the verbose notation at all? --Jesdisciple (talk) 22:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The distinction isn't between instance/prototype, but between prototype/constructor. For example, String.fromCharCode is not on the same object as String.prototype.substr. — Twey 21:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I've since come to understand that, and the heading structure of the article reflects my current solution. Now instance properties are subheadings of the prototype property of the constructor. The only problem I have with this is that the heading levels are hard to distinguish in the actual text (but in the TOC they're easy). --Jesdisciple (talk) 23:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I was about to bring this up myself, actually :) Should we use both the header structure and the verbose headings? — Twey 02:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Check my fix; I cut the ugly verbosity (and TOC redundancy) off before "prototype". Hopefully no one will think it means "Object['prototype.constructor']". --Jesdisciple (talk) 05:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)