This MedLibrary.org supplementary page on Talk:JavaScript is provided directly from the open source Wikipedia as a service to our readers. Please see the note below on authorship of this content, as well as the Wikipedia usage guidelines. To search for other content from our encyclopedia supplement, please use the form below:
Related Sponsors
 To-do list for JavaScript: |
· history · watch · refresh |
|---|---|
 Archives |
|
Contents |
Merge with Client-side Javascript
This article is mostly about Client-side JavaScript. I have proposed a merge with Client-side JavaScript. JavaScript is more abundant on the client-side so maybe Server-side JavaScript should have its own article but these should be merged or JavaScript should summarise both. What are your thought? Bamkin 19:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- (older 2007 comments)
- I would have to disagree, They are distinctly different languages... Prophet0014 (talk) 03:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Disagree with merge. While JS/ES is today most common in web browsers, there will in the future be more and more widespread alternate implementations. ActionScript, for instance, isn't the same as DOM programming. For that matter, web client programming is moving toward frameworks, a subject which clearly belongs with Client-side scripting, which doesn't seem right in a general description of the language. A big link the top saying "You might be looking for web page scripting might be appropriate instead. Shantirao (talk) 06:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Disagree with merge - look at a server-side Javascript product like Jaxer from Aptana - JavaScript is not just for the browser anymore. This article deals well with Javascript as language - Client-side JavaScript deals well with an application of Javascript. Ctkeene (talk) 17:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Most people care only about JS client side! So a clear difference between both is useful —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.228.157.69 (talk) 23:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
JavaScript 2?
How about something about version 2? Either in it's own section or under Language?
- Yes, this is a great idea, and it warrants a new section — quite a big one; there is really quite a lot to say. Dlexc 09:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- See ecmascript.org. Per the versioning proposal which builds on RFC 4329, JavaScript 2 is intended to denote exactly the same language as ECMAScript Edition 4. --Brendan Eich 04:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed, we need to start covering the different versions of JS in this article. Psychcf (talk) 01:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- I was surprised to see nothing about the next version in proposal/specification/development, what Brendan Eich calls JS2. The controversy about the next generation of ECMAScript is covered in that article, but regardless it's clear there will be a JavaScript version 2 from Mozilla that will have a subset /superset of next-generation features. -- Skierpage (talk) 02:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
"Weakly" Typed
Wouldn't it be more NPOV to refer to this as "loosely typed" rather than "weakly typed"? After all, lots of people prefer loose typing, and don't think of it as "weak". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.243.40.241 (talk) 23:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- Not really. Weak typing is a technical term. Other examples: weak reference, weak topology - these are completely neutral terms. --Maian (talk) 15:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
the debugger section is not up to date
Hello, the debugger section is not up to date anymore. Actually Opera realized its script debugger. The following sentence should be changed from
- Currently, Internet Explorer, Firefox, Opera and Safari all have script debuggers available for them.
to
- Currently, Internet Explorer, Firefox, and Safari all have script debuggers available for them. Opera announced a debugging developer tool in a preview released in February 2007.
Also, I would like to set an external link to the easy http request page to give some examples for http requests made by pure javascript without a huge framework behind. Also the mootools framework is very very popular and hard to find at wikipedia. On the opposite the Ajax framework page is linked everywhere. This influences a reader by suggesting the ajax framework everywhere to the believe that a framework is necessary to create a http request via javascript and leads to an improper support for the ajax framework.
However, a reader should receive a neutral overview and not be pushed to only one method.
--84.227.206.177 (talk) 03:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for noting Opera Dragonfly. I updated the article. In general, make the changes you want directly rather than suggesting them here. I'm not seeing unsupportable statements in favor of frameworks in the article; edit the article or mention particulars here if you know what you want to remove. Maybe the article should mention Prototype, jQuery, Dojo, YUI, mooTools, and other popular libraries, but it should probably address them collectively rather than individually, and I strongly lean against mentioning just one. --67.119.195.0 (talk) 00:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- IMO, the debugger section is just too big. We shouldn't list every single debugger out there. If anything, that list should be put in its own List of JavaScript debuggers article. --Maian (talk) 15:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Merger proposal
I think it's a good idea to merge this page with JavaScript syntax. This is because Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. Wikibooks already has a book about JavaScript, and there is no reason to duplicate content. Nate879 (talk) 02:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
- I'm pretty neutral to this idea. I'm not sure what should be moved from the JavaScript syntax to this article without making this article bloated. Maybe, we should just move all the information that JavaScript syntax has to the wikibook, if it's not already there. Is it possible to have JavaScript syntax redirect to the JavaScript wikibook? --Maian (talk) 01:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- The wikibook version is too "web-centric", and spends more effort on how javascript is embedded within other environments. The wikipedia article is independent, pristine Javascript. Like Goldilocks, I find this treatment "just right".
- You point out that Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. I don't believe this article satisfies the definitions of a how-to manual that you cite. For example, the article on the International Phonetic Alphabet gives a full exposition of the the structure of IPA - to my eye it is very similar to the Javascript article in question. I think for something that truly permeates the entire web, an extensive declarative exposition (as distinct from the history and politics of) is certainly in the purview of Wikipedia. I used my old Funk and Wagnalls (now Encarta) as a refresher for many a mathematical concept. For example, look at the Encarta treatment of Calculus. It might be from the terrible Microsoft empire - put it reflects what Funk and Wagnalls did for decades. Clearly it qualifies as something an encyclopedia does! The main body of the article is a simple exposition of the topic itself - the Leibniz versus Newton controversy or any of the politics of Calculus is reserved for a brief mention in the final section. I find the wikipedia Javascript syntax article to be very equivalent. --BirdieGalyan (talk) 00:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia content modification information:
- This page was last modified on 3 September 2008, at 00:40.
Wikipedia Authorship and Review
Wikipedia content provided here is not reviewed directly by MedLibrary.org. Wikipedia content is authored by an open community of volunteers and is not produced by or in any way affiliated with MedLibrary.org.
Wikipedia Usage Guidelines
This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article on "Talk:JavaScript".
The URL for this specific entry is:
All Wikipedia text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details). Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.