Re: JS 1.7 support: Who has it, etc.?

[trimmed attribution novel]

VK wrote:
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
JScript 5.7 for Windows XP (and probably 5.8 for Vista and Windows
Server 2008) obviously exist, however I have yet to check if there are
any differences to JScript 5.6 or if the increase in version is only
attributed to them being introduced with different OS versions.

JScript 5.7 for IE7 does exists but so far it updates 5.6 only on Vista
installation of IE7 unless someone does manual jscript.dll upgrade.

It exists here on my *Windows XP* SP 2 system, presumably since I updated it
to IE 7.0. Otherwise I have only let the latest security fixes installed,
*automatically*.

It has a noticeably upgraded gc mechanics to better handle intensive
memory usage in long running applications. See Eric Lippert blog at
http://blogs.msdn.com/ericlippert/archive/2003/09/17/53038.aspx and Paul
Dempsey explanations on 5.7 in blog's comments. Nothing explicit what you
could determine from the outside of the box: just some solutions should
start using lesser runtime memory.

That would be good to know, thanks.

Other producers are using the original Netscape numbering schema with
JavaScript 1.0 for Netscape 2.x and JavaScript 1.5 being the current
industry standard de facto.
Other products simply do not support JScript or JavaScript.

Your regular nonsense again.

Other products (i.e. those not using Trident or Gecko as layout engine) do
not support JScript oder JavaScript, but their own ECMAScript
implementation. It's a fact that you refuse to accept because it does not
fit into your tiny fantasy world.

And if anything is an industry standard right now, it is not JavaScript
1.5 but ECMAScript (ECMA-262) Edition 3 or ISO/IEC 16262:2002.

But this forum is not about ECMAScript - it is about Javascript.

This newsgroup is for all ECMAScript implementations unless there exists a
special newsgroup for a specification within the Big 8. That its charter
is somewhat outdated does not change the nature of the discussions we have
here, and the reason why we do.

JavaScript 1.5 is pretty much equal to JScript 5.6 lesser some minor
algorithm implementations.
Not true, as has been discussed here already.

The [1,2,] issue or the named function within an expression and a dozen
of similar discrepancies are way not enough to see two different
languages here. There are much more bigger differences between some C+ +
or Java implementations. Such issues still should be mentioned when they
are important but otherwise it is one language we are programming on.

I suggest you visit the ECMAScript Support Matrix site and get yourself
informed. If you don't trust that you may also look it up in the MSDN
Library (or ask Eric Lippert, but I doubt he'll be pleased to endure your
style again).

JavaScript 1.6 (Firefox 1.5) and JavaScript 1.7 (Firefox 2.0) are
Mozilla Foundation proprietary extensions of the base 1.5
which also introduces proprietary features, however all of those are
backed up by the Specifications' Conformance sections.

like having new type of "comments" <? ... ?> ;-) var foo = "foo"; <?
foobar ?> alert(foo); // no problem

Not true. It is no problem if the `<?' is followed by text that makes it
a a processing instruction. It is a SyntaxError ("invalid XML markup")
otherwise.

Yes, I am aware of the XML grounds of this bizarrity

Apparently you are not aware that this is not only an allowed, but also a
specified extension of ECMA-262, namely ECMA-357 / ISO/IEC 22537:2006
"ECMAScript for XML" (E4X).

but I mean can you take such source code w/o modifications anywhere
outside of most modern Gecko builds?

No, I don't think you can. That is what it makes a language of its own.
If only you would finally see that ...

Not all feature are backward compatible with 1.5, but any 1.5-
compliant program will run under 1.6 or 1.7 So overall you don't need
to have any headache at all with versions unless you want to use some
of new Gecko-specific features.
Not true either, Often Wrong.

Sometimes wrong, mostly right.

And of what do you dream at night?

Do not mix DOM interfaces' cross- browser
mess which is indeed huge and Javascript itself.--

Whatever.


PointedEars
--
Anyone who slaps a 'this page is best viewed with Browser X' label on
a Web page appears to be yearning for the bad old days, before the Web,
when you had very little chance of reading a document written on another
computer, another word processor, or another network. -- Tim Berners-Lee
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Comparing arraies
    ... programming language ") are not true functions ... I am specifically referring to JavaScript though and this ... The terms JavaScript and ECMAScript are used interchangeably there. ... The article is speaking about "JavaScript implementations". ...
    (comp.lang.javascript)
  • comp.lang.javascript FAQ - META 2009-03-04
    ... The official Big 8 Usenet newsgroup dealing with javascript is ... relates to javascript in a web browser. ... Questions that are specific to Microsoft's JScript may also ... This FAQ provides URLs to further information about ECMAScript ...
    (comp.lang.javascript)
  • Re: JScript vs. JavaScript differences
    ... Between JScript and JavaScript or between JScript and ECMAScript? ... let say JScript vs. all other prominent implementations. ...
    (comp.lang.javascript)
  • Re: Javascript Math problem
    ... You mean _in conforming implementations of ECMAScript_, ... I would have written "JavaScript" ... programming language that differ from one another in more than one respect. ...
    (comp.lang.javascript)
  • Re: JavaScript parser in lex+yacc or jflex+byacc/j
    ... JavaScript and JScript are ECMAScript ... When the implementations were created before the standard existed, ...
    (comp.lang.javascript)